IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 3207 of 2000(F) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R. ANANTHALAKSHMI AMMA, AGED 85 YEARS W/O. LATE RAMASUBBA IYER, T.C.37/1317, INSIDE FORT, VANCHIVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GOMATHY AMMAL, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. N. HARIHARAN, RESIDING AT T.C.37/769, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VANCHIOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 3207/2000. EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT. 30-5-90. EXT.P2 PROCEEDINGS DT. 27-7-1990. EXT.P3 DO. DO. EXT.P4 COMMUNICATION DT. 30-5-1991. EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION DT. 7-1-1991. EXT.P6 DO. DT. 14-6-1991. EXT.P7 DO. DT. 4-12-1993. EXT.P8 DO. DT.19-2-1994 EXT.P9 DO DT. 6-6-1994. EXT.P10 DO. DT. 9-9-1994. EXT.P11 COMMUNICATION DT. 20-10-1994. EXT.P12(a) RECEIPT DT. 17-6-1997. EXT.P12(b) DO. DT. 15-7-1997. EXT.P12(c) DO. DT. 11-8-1997. EXT.P13 DO. DT. 2-5-1997. EXT.P14 REPRESENTATION DT. 10-6-1998. EXT.P15 DO. DST. 10-6-1998. EXT.P16 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 13-1-1999. EXT.P17 RECEIPT DT. 13-2-1999. EXT.P18 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 8-1-1999. EXT.P19 REPLY DT. 13-2-1999. EXT.P20 DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P21 DO. DO. EXT.P22 ORDERDT. 19-12-1985. EXT.P23(a) PROPERTY TAX DT. 20-1-2000. EXT.P23(b) DO. DO. EXT.P23(c) DO. DO. EXT.P23(d) DO. DO. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 3207 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 30th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners were given land on Kuthakapattom under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, for three years by Exts.P 2 and P3. At that time, the lease rent was fixed on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government for that purpose. Subsequently, the Government cancelled the guidelines and thereafter market value of the land was fixed at a higher rate based on which lease rent was demanded from the petitioners. Challenging the fixation of the lease rent, the petitioners filed Exts.P 5, P6, P7 and P8 representations. Subsequently, the petitioners also submitted an application for assignment of the land itself. However, the same was not being considered on the ground that the petitioners have not paid off the arrears of lease rent and unless and until the petitioners pay off the entire arrears, the application for assignment cannot be considered. The petitioners now submit that fixation of the lease rent on the basis of the market value of the land as Rs. 50,000/- per cent is unreasonable in so far as the market value fixed is exorbitant. According to the petitioners, even if the earlier guidelines have been cancelled, the respondents had a duty to fix the market value at a reasonable rate and cannot arbitrarily fix it at an exorbitant rate. The petitioners would submit that if the lease rent is fixed at a reasonable rate, they are prepared to pay the entire amounts. The petitioners therefore seek a direction to the respondents to consider Exts.P 5, P6, P7 and P8 representations in regard to the fixation of lease rent and to direct them to consider the application for assignment stated to have been submitted by the petitioners. 2. The contentions are opposed by the respondents on the basis of a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. According to them, the fixation of market value of Rs. 50,000/- per cent is not at O.P.No. 3207/2000. -: 2 :- all exorbitant. Therefore, according to them, unless and until the entire arrears of lease rent is paid, the application for assignment cannot be considered. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The land in question is at Chalai in Thiruvananthapuram district. The place is commercially very important as far as Thiruvananthapuram is concerned. The lease rent at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per cent was fixed in 1990. Even in 1990, I do not think that at Chalai, the market value of Rs. 50,000/- per cent is exorbitant by any stretch of imagination. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in the contentions against the fixation of lease rent on the basis of the market value of the land as Rs. 50,000/- per cent. However, if the petitioners pay off the entire arrears of rent demanded by the respondents there is no reason why the respondents should not consider the application for assignment stated to have been submitted by the petitioners. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners pay off the entire arrears of the lease rent as fixed and demanded by the respondents, the competent among the respondents shall consider and pass orders on the application for assignment stated to have been submitted by the petitioners. The application shall be considered and orders passed in accordance with law within three months from the date when the petitioners completely pay off the entire arrears of lease rent due from the petitioners. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/