IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3234 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THILAKAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT SARAVANA BHAVAN, FACT COLONY, KARIMUKAL, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 3234 OF 2008 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P1. The petitioner says that he had applied for assignment of land. This application is stated to have been made in 1999. From what is produced in this writ petition, the earliest document is Exhibit P1 which was issued in 2004. In Exhibit P1 he was informed that since the annual income of his family is beyond the limit, and hence he is not eligible for free assignment of land. But, however, he was informed that if he is willing to pay the market value, his application can be considered. The petitioner accepted the offer in Exhibit P1 and on that basis, the request was considered and Exhibit P2 order of assignment was issued on 6.3.2007 and the value of land was fixed at Rs.1,37,900/-. 2. It is the fixation of market value contained in Exhibit P2 that was objected to by the petitioner by filing Exhibit P3 representation which was directed to be considered in Exhibit P4 judgment. Considering the objection that the petitioner has filed, the 2nd respondent issued Exhibit P5 order rejecting the same. W.P.(C)No.3234/08 2 The main reason that is stated in Exhibit P5 is that despite the ineligibility of the petitioner, his case was recommended for assignment on his agreeing for payment of market value of the land. According to the 2nd respondent, it is only on payment of the land value, the petitioner can be assigned the land in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fixation of value of the land must be in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. It is more than clear from Exhibit P1 itself, which was never challenged by the petitioner, that going by the Rules, he was ineligible for assignment of land and if that be so, the value fixed in the said Rules can have no relevance. Therefore the first submission made by the counsel is not acceptable. 4. The other request made by the petitioner is that the application having been made in 1999, even if market value is payable, the same has to be fixed with reference to the date of application. I am not persuaded to agree to this submission either. The petitioner has agreed for payment of market value only in 2004 and assignment was issued only in 2007. At the time when the W.P.(C)No.3234/08 3 assignment order was issued, the market value has to be fixed with reference to the date of issue of the order. In any case, there is nothing irrational in taking the market value prevailing on the date of assignment as the market value that is applicable. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dsn