IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 27263 of 2001(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K. GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, T.C.41/667, THOPPUMUKU, SREEVARAHAM, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TVM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, TVM. 3. TAHSILDAR, VANCHIYOOR, TVM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA BABU THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.44263/01 DISMISSED 3/1/08 SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.1.86 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION TO THE PETITINER EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF R2 DATED6.7.2001 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FORM FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND DT.16.12.97 EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DT.15.3.00 EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO.21667/01 IN OP 13591/01 OF THIS COURT. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.27263 2001-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was granted a lease under kuthakapattom arrangement in respect of 500 sq. links of land in Sy. No.616 of Vanchiyoor village where he is running a pan shop. He was remitting the lease rent at the rate of Rs.900/- per year which is evidenced by Ext.P1. Dispute arose in this case when the respondents, on the purported exercise of revision of lease rent, appears to have made assessment of lease rent and proceeded to evict him for the alleged non-payment of the amount and for not observing the conditions of the lease. He was issued with Ext.P3 notice dated 6.7.2001 which is under challenge in this original petition. In Ext.P3, the only reason stated is that it is proposed to resume the land and also that the period of lease is over and the conditions of lease have been violated by him. Ext.P3 does not reveal any details as to the alleged violation of the conditions of lease. There is no reference to any other orders passed by the District Collector or any other authority in respect of the matter. When the authority is proposing to cancel the grant issued to a citizen, it is axiomatic that they should follow a fair and reasonable procedure in the matter. OP 27263/2001 -2- 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein different reasons have been pointed out for proceeding against the petitioner, but none of the reasons stated therein find a place in Ext.P3. The orders, if any, passed by the authorities have also not been made available along with the counter affidavit. It is averred that in accordance with the provisions of G.O.(MS) 1026/85/RD dated 19.12.1985 the lease rent fixed was revised as far as the land in the possession of the petitioner is concerned and a demand notice for Rs.1,90,342/- was also served on the party on 5.9.2001. It is contended that a fair and reasonable market value of the land was fixed and accordingly the above lease rent was assessed. How the assessment was made and how the land value was fixed, is not clear from the averments made in the counter affidavit. Further, since it is a matter vitally affecting the rights of the petitioner, the petitioner should have been issued with notice proposing to revise the lease rent based on the market value fixed, because any arbitrary fixation of the market value will simultaneously reflect in the assessment of lease rent. The petitioner will be really affected if an improper assessment of market value is made and a revised rent is fixed based on the said market value. Therefore, I am of the view that the action taken by the respondents is without following any fair procedure and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file OP 27263/2001 -3- objections in the matter. Therefore, Ext.P3 is unsupportable in law and the same is quashed. 3. Ext.P1 shows that the lease rent was Rs.900/- per year. Any revision of lease rent can be only on the basis of the market value fixed reasonably and it cannot be exorbitant, as otherwise persons like the petitioner who is running only a pan shop, will not be in a position to pay off the alleged lease rent as now fixed. This aspect of the matter has to be borne in mind by the competent authority. 4. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner, if they propose to proceed against him either in respect of the fixation of lease rent or to take steps to resume the land. Before taking any such action, the petitioner will be given a reasonable opportunity to file objections and he will be given a personal hearing also. The original petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 27263/2001 -4- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.27263 of 2001-U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 3rd January, 2008.