IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 25212 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BIJOY, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. PUTHUR VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT PERINGOTUKARA. P. O., THANYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. N. MANOJ KUMAR SMT. JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KATTOOR, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 702. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 001. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PN WP(C).No. 25212 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT. P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 05/04/2011 EXT. P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SHOWING THE FAIR VALUE FIXED BY THE RDO. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/08/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE PN ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25212 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the purchaser of a property in Sy.Nos.918/11 and 919/11 of Edathirinji Village of Mukundapurm Village. According to the petitioner Ext.P2 is the fair value notification and that as per the said notification fair value fixed in respect of the land is Rs.17,500/- per Are. It is stated that adopting the said fair value, Ext.P1 document of sale was drawn up and was presented before the 3rd respondent for registration. His grievance is that despite the above the 3rd respondent refused to register the sale deed, contending that the fair value fixed in Ext.P2 is incorrect. It is complaining of the above this writ petition has been filed. 2. Although the learned Government Pleader submitted that the document presented by the petitioner did not reflect the fair value fixed in respect of the land, W.P.(C) No. 25212 OF 2011 :2 : the case of the petitioner is otherwise. However, if as contended by the petitioner the document presented by him satisfies the fair value notification, he is entitled to have his document registered. Therefore this is a matter for the 3rd respondent to verify and ascertain whether the document presented by the petitioner satisfies the requirements of fair value notification in force. In that view of the matter I dispose of the writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to produce original of Ext.P1 sale deed before the 3rd respondent. On such presentation the 3rd respondent will verify whether the value shown in Ext.P1 satisfies the fair value in force as notified and if so, then he will register the document without any further delay. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge