IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 646 of 2011(E)
1. SOBHANA, W/O.P.S. JAYAN, AGED 48,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
... Respondent
2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR
3. THAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,
5. SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.SAGEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 646 of 2011 E
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner wants to sell her property by Ext.P9
document. However, when presented for registration, the
document was returned with a memo, which indicates that the
reason for returning the document was that the document did
not comply with the fair value notification.
2. Although it is the case of the petitioner that in the
fair value notification the land has been wrongly classified and
that the notification is erroneous, the Rules provide that if the
person is aggrieved by the notification or the fair value fixed,
the remedy is to get it corrected by filing an appropriate
appeal.
3. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8
fair value fixation or the memo issued by the fifth respondent
returning the document, the remedy available is to get it
W.P.(C) No.646/2011
: 2 :
corrected by filing appeal before the District Collector. With
that liberty, this writ petition is disposed of.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks