IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 5547 of 2001(I)
1. K.I.GEORGE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :29/09/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 5547 of 2001
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 29th September, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are applicants for assignment of land. They
claim to be in occupation of the land for years. In fact, they
purchased it from previous possessors of the land for consideration.
It is only after such purchase they became aware of the fact that the
sellers did not have patta issued in their favour in respect of the
properties which are Government land. Therefore, the petitioners
applied for assignment of the land. The report of the revenue officers
were in favour of the petitioners. The Collector reported that the
value of the land is Rs. 1,100/- per cent. Despite the recommendation
of the revenue authorities, the 2nd respondent did not forward the
application to the 1st respondent for consideration. The petitioners
approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 14561/99, which was
originally dismissed by a learned Single Judge. In W.A.No.
2064/1999, that judgment was reversed and respondents 2 and 3
were directed to forward the applications submitted by the petitioners
to the 1st respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the
reports and remarks. The 1st respondent was also directed to pass
orders on the same. Ext. P5 is the judgment in the writ appeal. By
Ext. P8, orders of assignment were passed, but the land value fixed
therein was Rs. 3000/- per cent. The petitioners challenge the land
value so fixed. According to them, the market value of the properties
was far less than even the value fixed by the District Collector. They
would submit that going by Exts.P6 and P7 orders in respect of
identically situated properties, the land value fixed was less than Rs.
500/- per cent. Therefore, the same value should have been adopted
for the purpose of assignment of the petitioners’ land also, is the
contention raised. They would also submit that in Ext. P9 order of
assignment in respect of properties in the same survey number, the
O.P No. 5547/2001. -: 2 :-
rate fixed is Rs. 1500/- per cent.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the stand taken is
that although the District Collector had recommended land value at
Rs. 1100/- per cent, the petitioners had not paid tax in respect of that
property during the period when they were in possession and
therefore, it was decided to enhance the land value by 1= times the
market value at that time.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. If the petitioners have not paid tax which they are liable to
pay, the remedy of the respondents lies in recovering the tax by a
process known to law. There is no provision in the Land Assignment
Rules for enhancing land value on that count. The land value has to
be fixed only in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Assignment Rules. Admittedly, the District Collector had fixed the
land value as Rs. 1100/- per cent. That being so, the 1st respondent
could not have fixed the land value at Rs. 3000/- per cent. However,
in view of the fact that by Ext. P9 order the land value in the same
survey number was fixed as Rs. 1500/- per cent for assignment, I am
of opinion that, that land value can be adopted for the purpose of
assignment to the petitioners also.
In the above circumstances, the impugned orders to the extent it
fixed land value at Rs. 3000/- per cent is quashed. It is declared that
the petitioners are liable to pay land value only at Rs. 1500/- per cent.
The petitioners shall pay the land value within two months. The
original petition is allowed as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/