IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 5547 of 2001(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.I. GEORGE, KEEPAMASSERIL HOUSE, KODIYADI, NENMENI AMSOM DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. T.P. MATHAI, S/O. PAILY, THANNIKOT HOUSE, NENMENI.P.O., SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. M.K. BENNY, MUNDAKODIYIL HOUSE, NENMENI.P.O., SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. SUNNY M.K., MUNDAKODIYIL HOUSE, NENMENI.P.O., SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. JOLLY THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS, THANNIKOTHOUSE, KALLUVAYAL ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.SASINDRAN, MR.BEPIN VIJAYAN. O.P. 5547/2001-I: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA – REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 5547/2001-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COLLECTOR DTD. 28/12/1998 IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COLLECTOR IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.3. DTD. 28/12/98. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COLLECTOR IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.4. DTD. 28/12/98. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COLLECTOR IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.5. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. NO. 2064/99 DTD. 13/08/2000. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.419/95 RD DTD. 23/08/1995. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 04/08/1997 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY TO THE R.3. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M8.234/2000/REV. DTD. 24/07/2000. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O.(MSz).NO.355/2000/REV. DTD. 22/11/2000 ASSIGNING 10.80 ACRES OF LAND IN R.S. NO'S. 427/4, 5,6 AND 427/17 OF KRISHNAGIRI VILLAGE AT THE RATE OF RS.1,500/- PER CENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 5547 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are applicants for assignment of land. They claim to be in occupation of the land for years. In fact, they purchased it from previous possessors of the land for consideration. It is only after such purchase they became aware of the fact that the sellers did not have patta issued in their favour in respect of the properties which are Government land. Therefore, the petitioners applied for assignment of the land. The report of the revenue officers were in favour of the petitioners. The Collector reported that the value of the land is Rs. 1,100/- per cent. Despite the recommendation of the revenue authorities, the 2nd respondent did not forward the application to the 1st respondent for consideration. The petitioners approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 14561/99, which was originally dismissed by a learned Single Judge. In W.A.No. 2064/1999, that judgment was reversed and respondents 2 and 3 were directed to forward the applications submitted by the petitioners to the 1st respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the reports and remarks. The 1st respondent was also directed to pass orders on the same. Ext. P5 is the judgment in the writ appeal. By Ext. P8, orders of assignment were passed, but the land value fixed therein was Rs. 3000/- per cent. The petitioners challenge the land value so fixed. According to them, the market value of the properties was far less than even the value fixed by the District Collector. They would submit that going by Exts.P6 and P7 orders in respect of identically situated properties, the land value fixed was less than Rs. 500/- per cent. Therefore, the same value should have been adopted for the purpose of assignment of the petitioners' land also, is the contention raised. They would also submit that in Ext. P9 order of assignment in respect of properties in the same survey number, the O.P No. 5547/2001. -: 2 :- rate fixed is Rs. 1500/- per cent. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the stand taken is that although the District Collector had recommended land value at Rs. 1100/- per cent, the petitioners had not paid tax in respect of that property during the period when they were in possession and therefore, it was decided to enhance the land value by 1½ times the market value at that time. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. If the petitioners have not paid tax which they are liable to pay, the remedy of the respondents lies in recovering the tax by a process known to law. There is no provision in the Land Assignment Rules for enhancing land value on that count. The land value has to be fixed only in accordance with the provisions of the Land Assignment Rules. Admittedly, the District Collector had fixed the land value as Rs. 1100/- per cent. That being so, the 1st respondent could not have fixed the land value at Rs. 3000/- per cent. However, in view of the fact that by Ext. P9 order the land value in the same survey number was fixed as Rs. 1500/- per cent for assignment, I am of opinion that, that land value can be adopted for the purpose of assignment to the petitioners also. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders to the extent it fixed land value at Rs. 3000/- per cent is quashed. It is declared that the petitioners are liable to pay land value only at Rs. 1500/- per cent. The petitioners shall pay the land value within two months. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/