IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 18612 of 2007(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.RAMACHANDRA REDDIAR, MUNDAKKAL WEST, ERAVIPURAM,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SUMITHA SRI.LOWEL CHERIAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE TAHASILDAR,KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18612 of 2007(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.331/1976 OF KOLLAM SRO. EXT.P1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3455/1982 OF KOLLAM SRO. EXT.P1(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3411/1982 OF KOLLAM SRO. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BANK'S APPROVED VALUER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.18612 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th September , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside the valuation certificate issued by the respondent Tahsildar contending that the same has caused much adverse consequences as far as the rights and interests of the petitioner are concerned. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to the materials on record, that the petitioner is the owner of the land having an extent of 71.25 cents in the heart of Kollam city. It is stated that there were some transactions between the petitioner and the Company by name United Industries (India), leading to some arbitration proceedings. Pursuant to the Award obtained, the said Company took steps to have the above property sold, after causing the same to be valued, which led to Ext. P3 Valuation Certificate issued in the W.P.(C) No.18612 OF 2007 2 year 2006, grossly undervaluing the property without any regard to the actual market value involved. 3. The learned Counsel submits that by virtue of the subsequent turn of events, the earlier order passed by the Civil Court in the concerned Execution Application was set aside as per the order dated 08.02.2007 and that the issue as projected in the writ petition has lost the significance. But it is stated that further proceedings are being pursued by the Union Bank of India, who is having the rights over the property in question by virtue of the mortgage created by the petitioner and that they are seeking to rely upon Ext. P3 Valuation Certificate in the proceedings being pursued under the SARFAESI Act. If the valuation reflected in Ext.P3 certificate is allowed to remain, it may cause much loss and hardship to the petitioner and hence seeks to set aside the same, for having issued, allegedly in contravention of the relevant provisions of law. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the apprehension of the petitioner is quite wrong and unfounded, as it is specifically given in Ext. P3 W.P.(C) No.18612 OF 2007 3 itself, that the purpose of issuance is only for production before the Addl. District Court, Kollam and not before the DRT or elsewhere. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the challenge raised against Ext.P3 is wrong and misconceived; in so far as it is none other than the respondent Tahsildar, who is the competent authority to have issued the Valuation Certificate. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, it is open for the petitioner to approach the RDO or the District Collector, as the case may be, challenging the validity/correctness; which course has not been admittedly pursued in the present case. 5. After hearing the parties concerned, this Court finds that the issue remaining for consideration has only academic importance, this is more so, since the purpose for which Ext.P3 has been issued and the forum before which it was to be produced, have lost the significance in respect of the concerned cause of action. In any view of the matter, Ext.P3 Certificate, issued in the year 2006, cannot reflect the actual market value as on date. It is open for the petitioner to approach the W.P.(C) No.18612 OF 2007 4 concerned authority and to have the property valued so as to reflect the actual market value, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk