IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 4454 of 2005(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.VITTAL BHANDARY, S/O.SUBBAYA BHANDARY, HARI NIVAS, ADHUR VILLAGE & POST, VIA. MULLERIA, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARGOD AT KANHANGAD. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, KASARGOD. R1 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 4454/2005(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT ORDER DATED 12/06/2001 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 10/08/2001 AS PER LA 78/92/ADHUR ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 26/06/02. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/12/2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 4454 OF 2005 (E) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner sought assignment of of 0.15 acres of land in RS No.313/7B-2 of Adur Village. Accordingly, after enquiry, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P1 order to assign the land in favour of the petitioner, after collecting the market value at the rate of Rs.1500/- per cent. Petitioner was aggrieved by the land value fixed, and therefore, filed an appeal to the District Collector. The District Collector passed Ext.P3 order finding that the value fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was too low, and therefore, ordered that land value should be re-fixed. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent. That was rejected by Ext.P4. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, the writ petition is filed seeking a direction to fix the correct land value. 2. As already stated, petitioner is aggrieved by the land value fixed in Ext.P1 and the land value fixed in Ext.P1 is found to be erroneous in Ext.P3 order by the District Collector, which has been confirmed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Therefore, WPC No. 4454/05 :2 : necessarily the RDO will have to re-fix the value of the land in question. 3. Therefore, directing that the 3rd respondent will conduct enquiry into the correct value of the land with notice to the petitioner and fix the land value of the land untrammelled by the observation of the District Collector that the land value fixed is too low, the writ petition is disposed of. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent, who shall take appropriate action in this matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp