IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 14502 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THRISSUR GRAND SHOPING MALL (P) LTD., 8/107/C3, E TOWN SHOPPING MALL, EAST FORT JUNCTION, THRISSUR EAST P.O., THRISSUR-680 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. NOUSHAD P.A. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN ADV.SMT.GEETHA.P.MENON ADV.SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THRISSUR AMALGAMATED SUB REGISTRAR, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MM WP(C).No. 14502 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE VENDOR OF THE PETITIONER P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. P6/2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 P4 COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 1 P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.6828/2011-C P6 COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER P7 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6-55786/10 PASSED BY THE Ist RESPONDNET RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE MM ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14502 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P7, an order passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a property. It appears that thereupon he was issued Ext.P3 communication stating that as against the value shown in Ext.P1, applying the fair value fixed, the value should be `30,11,79,500 and that the petitioner should remit an additional amount of `2,71,06,155/-. Thereupon the fair value fixed in respect of the property was challenged by the petitioner by filing Ext.P4 appeal before the 1st respondent invoking his appellate power under Section 45A(4) of the Kerala Stamp Act. The appeal was considered and Ext.P7 order was passed confirming the fair value as originally fixed. It is this order which is under challenge. 3. It also appears that by order dated 30/5/11, this Court stayed Ext.P3 order calling upon the petitioner to remit stamp duty on condition that the petitioner remits the stamp duty on the value as shown in Ext.P1 document. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in compliance with the said order, an WPC No. 14502/11 :2 : amount of `1,52,90,000/- has been remitted by the petitioner on 11th of June, 2011. 4. As far as the validity of Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent is concerned, a reading of Ext.P7 shows that the fair value fixed in respect of the property of the petitioner situated in Sy.Nos.132/1 and 144/3 has been retained as such. In other words, the appeal filed by the petitioner stands rejected. However, a reading of this order shows that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the 1st respondent to sustain the fair value already fixed or to reject the contentions of the petitioner, which were urged by them in Ext.P4 appeal. Therefore, Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent is a non speaking order and for that reason itself, Ext.P7 order deserves to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P7 order and direct that the 1st respondent will reconsider Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner with notice to him and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp