DEVASSYKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are by the respective petitioners who are challenging the order passed in appeal by the District Collector rejecting their appeals in regard to the fixation of fair value of their properties.

(2.) IN W.P.(C) No.14445/2012 the relevant facts are the following: The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of an extent of 20.23 ares of land comprised in Sy. No.55/2 of Kallettumkara Village. It is stated that it was a paddy field which was reclaimed and converted into paramba, but it is still retained as nilam in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner entered into an agreement on 25.1.2011 with one Shri K.S. Mukundan to sell the property at a rate of Rs.17,000.00 per cent (Ext.P1). When the draft was produced before the Sub Registrar, it was not approved and ratified on the ground that the fair value fixed by the Government in the area in question is Rs.80,000.00 per are. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal. The matter was referred to the Village Officer and Tahsildar for enquiry and they have submitted the reports as per Exts.P3 and P4 which have been forwarded to the District Collector as per Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the final order passed by the District Collector.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent in both the cases and the petitioners have filed reply affidavits. Since the pleadings are similar and the questions have also raised accordingly, I shall consider the same together. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the description of the properties included in the entire survey number as residential plots without road access and fixing the fair value accordingly is faulty. Both the lands are basically converted lands and originally they were paddy lands. There is no road access. Therefore, they cannot be valued as a residential plot. They can be treated only as converted lands alone. By referring to the relevant provisions, viz. Section 28A of the Stamp Act and the rules, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there should be a proper classification of the land for fixing fair value. But herein, for the entire property having same survey number, uniform value has been fixed. This has prejudiced the petitioners. The properties are lying in rural areas, within a grama panchayat. Therefore, the same will not come within the category, viz. "residential plot without vehicular access." It is also submitted by the learned counsel by referring to the reports of the Village Officer and Tahsildar that both the reports will show that the contentions of the petitioners are liable to be accepted. In Ext.P3 report produced in W.P.(C) No.14445/2012, it is stated that the property is described as nilam in the Basic Tax Register. On both sides there is a puramboke thodu surrounding it and there is no direct access to the plot. Paddy is not being cultivated and there are coconut trees of aged more than 25 years. Importantly, it is stated that even though the property is situated as nilam, now the description as "residential plot without private road access" is not fully correct and the maximum fair value that can be fixed is Rs.40,000.00 per are. Ext.P4 is the report of the Tahsildar which also contains the same details. The petitioner has produced along with the reply affidavit Ext.P8, a copy of document No.2115/2011 stated to be of an adjacent property. It is stated that the same was produced along with the memorandum of appeal before the District Collector. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the value shown in the said document was lesser than the fair value fixed.