IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33228 of 2010(C)
1. PUTHUSSERY VEETIL RAVEENDRAN,
... Petitioner
2. VARIAMBATH SANTHOSH KUMAR,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB REGISTRAR,
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.33228 of 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 18th November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner states that he purchased 61 cents of land
in R.Sy. No.2 of Keezhattoor Desom in Taliparamba
Amsom. According to the petitioner, aggrieved by the fair
value fixed for the property , he filed an appeal under
Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act. That appeal was
rejected by Ext.P7 order. Consequently the appeal filed
under Section 45A (4) also was also rejected by Ext.P8. It
is challenging the aforesaid orders, this writ petition is
filed.
2. The main contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner was while passing Ext.P7 order
the District Collector did not take note of the prevailing
value in the neighbouring properties. When that
contention was raised, by order dated 2.11.2010, this
Court directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce
the documents of neighbouring properties for
substantiating his contentions.
3. In compliance with said direction, petitioner has
W.P (C) No.33228 of 2010
2
filed I.A No.15766 of 2010 producing Exts.P9 to P13
documents which according to the petitioner, were
executed in relation to the properties in the neighbouring
locality and which shows that the value of the lands is less
than the fair value fixed by the Government.
4. Obviously, when Ext.P7 order was passed by the
District Collector, the District Collector did not have
occasion to refer to Exts. P9 to P13. In that view of the
matter and since the petitioner has produced the aforesaid
documents, I am inclined to think that Ext.P5 appeal filed
by the petitioner resulting in Ext.P7 has to be reconsidered.
In order to enable the District Collector to reconsider
Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner, I set aside Ext.P7.
5. Petitioner shall produce Exts.P9 to P13 before
the District Collector. This shall be done by the petitioner
within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. It is directed that if the petitioner produces the
aforesaid documents, Ext.P5 will be reconsidered with
notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within four weeks thereafter. Needless to say
W.P (C) No.33228 of 2010
3
that, depending upon the outcome of the appeal, necessary
modifications will be made to Ext.P8 order rejecting Ext.P6
appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 45A (4) as well.
Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along
with copy of the writ petition also before the first
respondent, for compliance.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/
P.A to Judge