Sindu Santhosh v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SINDU SANTHOSH,AGED 48 YEARS D/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, THAZHATHETHIL, THRIKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686105.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE SMT.C.B.SABEELA SMT.JISHA SASI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO**| ||**GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686001.**| |**3**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**O/O. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL**| ||**STATION, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.**| |**4**|**THE TAHSILDAR,**| ||**CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,**| ||**CHANGANACHERRY-686101.**| |**5**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THRIKODITHANAM**| ||**P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686105.**| ## **R BY GOT.PLEADER SMT. A.C. VIDHYA** -2- WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P) **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of 20 Ares 20 sq.meters of land situated in Re.Sy. No.76/2 and 69 Ares 03 sq.meters of land in Re.Sy.No.76/3 in Block No.8 of Thrikodithanam Village in Changanacherry Taluk, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent District Collector to effect necessary correction in Ext.P2 and reduce the fair value on the basis of the market value prevailing in the locality. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P4 appeal dated 22.01.2021 filed by the petitioner and pass orders on the same within a time limit to be fixed by this Court, after affording him an opportunity of being heard. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 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 -4- ## WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P) 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 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 -5- WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P) 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 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 Government Pleader would submit that the 2[nd] respondent District Collector will consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner, if it is in order and pending consideration, within a time limit to be -6- WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P) fixed by this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consideration of Ext.P14 appeal may be with notice to the petitioner and after affording him 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 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 appeal, if it is in order and pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 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 -7- WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P) 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 2[nd] 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** AV/15/3 -8- WP(C).No.6546 OF 2021(P) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO. KL05011009070/2020 DATED 16/10/2020.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE LAND AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE ADJACENT LAND WITH RE.SY. NO.96/2,3,4 IN BLOCK NO.8 AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22/01/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.**