High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-02-11Disposed of the writ petition with a positive d...

Sanjeev, Joy, and Thressiamma v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.3514 of 2021(L)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran, J.
Judgment Date: 2021-02-11
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent District Collector to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P1–P3 appeals, if they are in order, with notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of hearing, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of the writ petition with a positive direction to the District Collector to consider Exts. P1–P3 in order, with notice and hearing, within three months of certified copy of the judgment, consistent with statutory provisions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sanjeev
Joy
Thressiamma

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department
The Land Revenue Commissioner, Commissionerate of Land Revenue
The District Collector, Ernakulam
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT. Mereena J. Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT Vidya A.C., Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a land valuation notification under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The petitioners—Sanjeev, Joy, and Thressiamma—claim ownership in specific lands in Karukutty and Angamaly villages and seek a mandamus directing the District Collector to consider Exts. P1–P3 appeals filed against the fair value fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and to publish the determined values in the Official Gazette after hearing counsel for the petitioners. The court outlines the statutory framework of Section 28A: initial fixation by the RDO under sub-section (1), possible revision by the RDO every five years or sooner under sub-section (1A), and publication of fixed values under sub-section (3). Sub-section (4) provides a right of appeal to the Collector within one year of publication, with a proviso for delayed appeals if sufficient cause is shown; sub-section (5) allows a post-appeal review within one year from a further notification under sub-section (1B). It is highlighted that remedies exist within the statutory scheme, including Form B under Rule 5 of the Kerala Stamp Rules, 1995. The court disposes the petition, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P1–P3, if in order, with notice and hearing, within three months of receiving a certified copy, thereby ensuring compliance with law and procedure. The judgment also cites safeguards from State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra and Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI regarding the limits of mandamus.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (sub-sections (1), (1A), (3), (4), proviso to (4), and (5)Sub-section (1B) of Section 28AKerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of Land) Rules, 1995, Rule 5Form B (in connection with Rule 5)Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mandamus cannot compel action contrary to law; courts must enforce statutory provisions and not direct actions that contravene law; remedy for fixation of land value lies within the statutory appeal and review framework under Section 28A and related rules.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that Section 28A prescribes a clear remedy for challenging the fair value fixed for land and requests a mandamus directing the District Collector to consider Exts. P1–P3 appeals against the land value notification, with notice and a hearing, and to publish the revised values in the Official Gazette within a reasonable timeframe. They emphasized the right to hearing and the statutory procedure for appeals under Section 28A(4) and (5).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the District Collector would examine Exts. P1–P3 if in order and dispose of them within a time frame; the Court should refrain from issuing mandamus to override statutory requirements. They stressed that mandamus cannot compel unlawful action and that the remedy lies in the statutory appeal and possible review under the Act and Rules.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra	(1996) 9 SCC 309	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that mandamus cannot compel actions contrary to law and should respect statutory provisions.
Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI	(2011) 10 SCC 259	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that courts should not direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions and must adhere to the rule of law.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sanjeev, Joy, and Thressiamma v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.3514 OF 2021(L)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SANJEEV, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. PAILY, KALAMPARAMBAN HOUSE, KARAYAMPARAMBU, KARUKUTTY P.O, KARUKUTTY-683 576, KERALA.** - **2 JOY, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. POULO, MENACHERY HOUSE, KUTTILAKKARA, MATTOOR, KALADY P.O, KALADY-683 574, KERALA.** - **3 THRESSIAMMA,AGED 68 YEARS W/O. JOSE, CHEMBAKASSERRY HOUSE, MANGATTUKARA, ANGAMALY P.O, ANGAMALY-683 572, KERALA. BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA.J.JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDIING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** -2- W.P.(C). No. 3514 of 2021 **4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI-682 001** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT VIDHYA A.C- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- W.P.(C). No. 3514 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** The 1[st] petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 21.11 Ares of property in Block-III, Karukutty Village in Sy.No.281/5-4; the 2[nd] petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 5.31 Ares of property in Block No.XII of Angamaly Village in Sy.No.201/11-3; and the 3[rd] petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 3.24 Ares of property in Block No.XI of Angamaly Village in Sy.No.487/12-3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent District Collector to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 to P3 appeals filed against the notification of the land value issued under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and publish the same in the Official Gazette within the time limit fixed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. -4- W.P.(C). No. 3514 of 2021 3. Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 deals with fixation of fair value of land. As per sub-section (1) of Section 28A, every Revenue Divisional Officer shall, subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, fix the fair value of the lands situate within the area of his jurisdiction, for the purpose of determining the duty chargeable at the time of registration of instruments involving lands. As per sub-section (1A) of Section 28A, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the fair value of land fixed under sub-section (1) may be revised by the Revenue Divisional Officer every five years or earlier if so directed by the Government, if in the opinion of the Government any substantial change of the fair value of land has taken place. As per sub-section (3) of Section 28A, the fair value of land fixed under sub-section (1) and the revised fair value of land fixed under sub-section (1A) shall be published in such manner as may be provided in the rules made under this Act. As per sub-section (4) of Section 28A, any person aggrieved by the fixation of fair value under sub-section (1) or the -5- W.P.(C). No. 3514 of 2021 revision of fair value under sub-section (1A) may, within one year of its publication under sub-section (3), appeal to the Collector. As per the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 28A, inserted with effect from 01.04.2010, the Collector may admit an appeal preferred after the said period of one year if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period. As per subsection (5) of Section 28A, after the publication of the increased fair value of land under sub-section (1B), any person aggrieved by the fixation of fair value of land in an appeal under sub-section (4) may, within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under subsection (1B), file an application to the Collector to review the order passed in appeal and the Collector shall dispose of the same in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. Therefore, if the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the fixation of fair value by the Revenue Divisional Officer, he can avail the statutory remedy before the 2[nd] respondent District Collector, by filing an appeal, under sub-section (4) of -6- W.P.(C). No. 3514 of 2021 Section 28A of the Act, read with Rule 5 of the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of Land) Rules, 1995, in Form B, affixing Court Fee Stamp as required by sub-rule (1) of Rules. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the 3[rd] respondent District Collector will consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P1 to P3 appeals filed by the petitioners, if those appeals are in order, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consideration of Exts.P1 to P3 appeals may be with notice to the petitioners and after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3[rd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P1 to P3 appeals, if they are in order, with notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. -7- W.P.(C). No. 3514 of 2021 7. In **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 3[rd] respondent shall take an appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** das -8- W.P.(C). No. 3514 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.01.2021.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28.01.2021 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 28.01.2021 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**