IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30659 of 2010(F)
1. MATHAI CHERIAN, SANKUPARAMBIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE),
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688001.
4. TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 30659 OF 2010 (F)
=====================
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner holds Kuthakapattom lease of 12.5 cents of land
in Sy.No.68/1 of Mavelikkara Village. In this writ petition,what the
petitioner challenges is Exts.P2, P4, P6, P8 and P12 and also seeks
a direction to give an opportunity to the petitioner for being heard
in the matter of fixing of rent.
2. Ext.P2 is the receipt evidencing payment of the lease
rental of Rs.20/-, which the petitioner paid way back in 1996. It
would appear that the rental was revised later and Ext.P4 shows
that in 1999, petitioner paid an amount of Rs.181 towards the
rental. According to the petitioner, the rental was again revised
and was fixed at Rs.400/- for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. This
again was revised to Rs.722/- for the years 2004-05. This was
revised and fixed at Rs.2,987/- for the period from 2005-06 till
2007-08. Representations made by the petitioner for reduction
were rejected and the rate was again later revised for the year
2008-09 and Rs.4520/- paid by the petitioner was acknowledged
by Ext.P13.
WPC No. 30659/10
:2 :
3. First of all, as far as the rate at which lease is levied is
covered by the provisions of Ext.P14, the Assignment of Land
within Municipal and Corporation Area Rules, 1995. Rule 12(5)
reads as follows;
12(5) Lease Rent:- Annual lease rent shall be fixed at the
rate of ten per cent (10%) of the market value of the land
when it is used for non commercial purposes and twenty
percent (20%) of the market value of the land when it is
used for commercial purposes. If the lease applied for is
non-objectionable, the lease rent for the period of lease
proposed to be granted shall be remitted (within one
month from the date of receipt of orders from the Assigning
Authority).
4. Admittedly, the land in question is used for non
commercial purposes. If that be so, what is payable by the
petitioner is 10% of the market value. Petitioner has no case that
the amount demanded from the petitioner is more than what is
permissible under the Rules. If that be so, so long as the Rule
remains in the statute, petitioner cannot challenge the amount
demanded from him. Since the levy is thus governed by the
statutory provisions, so long as there is no provision enabling him
to claim an opportunity of hearing prior to fixation of market
value, he cannot seek any such direction in this writ petition.
5. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the
WPC No. 30659/10
:3 :
Apex Court in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of
Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004(3) SCC 214) and contended
that the State cannot resort to profiteering in the matter of
fixation of lease rentals. In that case, the Apex Court was
concerned with the lease rental fixed by the Bombay Port Trust
for leasing out its properties for port related activities. The
judgment shows that there was no rule similar to Rule 12(5)
prevailing in the Bombay Port Trust nor was the Apex Court
concerned with the validity of any such fixation. The facts dealt
with by the Apex Court is totally different.
6. That apart, on facts, it is seen that the market value
fixed by the Government is Rs.17000 per year and it is on that
basis, petitioner has been called upon to pay the rental as per
Ext.P12. Such fixation also cannot be said to be arbitrary nor
does it amount to profiteering. On that ground also, I am not
persuaded to interfere.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp