IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33228 of 2010(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. PUTHUSSERY VEETIL RAVEENDRAN, S/O.LATE DAMODARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, VISHNUKRIPA, MANDHAMKUNDU, THALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KEEZATTUR DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. VARIAMBATH SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.K.V.NARAYANAN NAIR, CONTRACTOR, EZHOM AMSOM, NARKODE DESOM PO, KOTTILA, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.G.GIREESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, THALIPARAMBA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.33228 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that he purchased 61 cents of land in R.Sy. No.2 of Keezhattoor Desom in Taliparamba Amsom. According to the petitioner, aggrieved by the fair value fixed for the property , he filed an appeal under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act. That appeal was rejected by Ext.P7 order. Consequently the appeal filed under Section 45A (4) also was also rejected by Ext.P8. It is challenging the aforesaid orders, this writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was while passing Ext.P7 order the District Collector did not take note of the prevailing value in the neighbouring properties. When that contention was raised, by order dated 2.11.2010, this Court directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce the documents of neighbouring properties for substantiating his contentions. 3. In compliance with said direction, petitioner has W.P (C) No.33228 of 2010 2 filed I.A No.15766 of 2010 producing Exts.P9 to P13 documents which according to the petitioner, were executed in relation to the properties in the neighbouring locality and which shows that the value of the lands is less than the fair value fixed by the Government. 4. Obviously, when Ext.P7 order was passed by the District Collector, the District Collector did not have occasion to refer to Exts. P9 to P13. In that view of the matter and since the petitioner has produced the aforesaid documents, I am inclined to think that Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner resulting in Ext.P7 has to be reconsidered. In order to enable the District Collector to reconsider Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner, I set aside Ext.P7. 5. Petitioner shall produce Exts.P9 to P13 before the District Collector. This shall be done by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that if the petitioner produces the aforesaid documents, Ext.P5 will be reconsidered with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. Needless to say W.P (C) No.33228 of 2010 3 that, depending upon the outcome of the appeal, necessary modifications will be made to Ext.P8 order rejecting Ext.P6 appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 45A (4) as well. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition also before the first respondent, for compliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge