ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.

(2.) Petitioner as the executor appointed under a Will moved an application for issue of a probate over that will executed by one late Alice Varghese, before the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam. After enquiry, the probate annexed with a copy of the will was issued to the petitioner relegating the question of court fee payable on such probate subject to the determination of the market value of the property by the District Collector, to whom a reference had been made for determining that question as contemplated by Rules. The District Collector after enquiry furnished a report assessing the valuation of the property covered by the probate at Rs. 38,49,030.60/-. The property covered by the probate has an extent of 7.28 ares comprised in survey No. 797/5/9 of Ernakulam village. Market value was fixed in the report of the Collector at the rate of Rs. 5,28,713/- per are. Ext.P2 is the copy of the report. On receipt of the report, notice was given to the petitioner to pay court fee on the valuation over the property determined by the District Collector. Petitioner filed objections to the report contending that the market value assessed by the District Collector is excessive and unreasonable. According to the petitioner, the market value of the property was only Rs. 9,00,000/-. In the enquiry conducted by the District Judge, petitioner produced registered copies of sale deeds executed in 2000 to substantiate his case that the market value of the property covered by the probate proceedings is only Rs. 9,00,000/- as claimed by him. The District Judge on consideration of the materials produced found that the report of the District Collector fixing the market value of the property has to be accepted as the correct value for the purpose of the valuation of the property and, accordingly, the objections raised to the report by the petitioner were negatived. Petitioner was directed to pay court fee on the market value assessed by the District Collector in Ext.P2 report in respect of the probate issued by order of the court. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the District Judge. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Adv. Sri. S.P. Chaly and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Shyson P. Manguzha for the State/respondent. Inviting my attention to Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Board of Revenue) Rules 1960, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Collector while fixing the market value has flouted the rules in not providing any opportunity to the petitioner to show the actual market value of the property covered by the probate proceedings. The District Collector after collecting the report from a Village Officer without conducting any enquiry as mandated by the rules has arbitrarily fixed the value of the property, which, according to the counsel, does not reflect the true value of the property as and when the proceedings commenced before the court. The learned Counsel relying on "Indian Transformers Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, 1983 KerLT 861 and Suresh Shenoy v. Wealth Tax Officer, 1983 KerLT 664 contended that the District Collector while conducting an enquiry under Section 59 of the Court Fees Act for the purpose of determining the market value of a property in a probate proceedings to determine the court fee payable on the value of such property, has necessarily to comply with the principles of natural justice in providing reasonable opportunity to the party covered by the proceedings to tender relevant materials and show what is the true value of the property. Since that opportunity has been denied to the petitioner and there was no enquiry complying with the principles of natural justice in determining the market value by the District Collector, Ext.P2 report is liable to be discarded as unworthy of any value, is the submission of the counsel. The District Judge without examining those aspects has given unmerited value to Ext.P2 report and on such basis passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay court fee on the valuation made by the District Collector, which, according to the counsel, is patently erroneous and unsustainable under law. Petitioner therefore urged for setting aside the order of the District Judge and remitting the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the District Judge after conducting an enquiry as provided under Section 60 of the Court Fees Act on getting a report from the District Collector and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce relevant materials, has passed the impugned order holding that the valuation made by the District Collector is proper, valid and correct. The order of the District Judge after such enquiry is final and that cannot be impeached attacking Ext.P2 report rendered by the District Collector is the submission of the learned Government Pleader. No interference with the order passed by the court below in the given facts of the case is called for in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court, submits the learned Government Pleader.