IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30208 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SMIJOSH AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.MANI, KANIYATH HOUSE,52/1147A,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, AYYANTHOLE THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR,AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTRATE,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR-680003 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30208 OF 2010 (A) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 fair value fixation. It is seen that against Ext.P3 fair value fixation, petitioner has filed Ext.P5 appeal before the 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P7 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 before the Government. It is at that stage, the writ petition is filed. In so far as Ext.P8 filed before the Government is concerned, petitioner is not able to show any provision of law that the said application has to be considered. In that view of the matter Ext.P8 filed before the Government cannot be ordered to be considered. 2. In so far as Ext.P7 order passed by the District Collector rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner is concerned, a reading of Ext.P7 shows that the complaint of the petitioner is that the area in question is a residential area and therefore, the fair value of Rs.10,00,000 per are fixed is exorbitant. However, all that the District Collector has stated in Ext.P7 order is that the Village Officer has adduced evidence that the property has WPC No. 30208/10 :2 : commercial and residential importance. Apart from stating so, the District Collector has not referred to the evidence stated to have been adduced by the Village Officer. Not even a description of the said evidence has been given. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that Ext.P7 is one passed without any application of mind, and therefore, the matter needs to be reexamined. 3. In order to enable the District Collector to reconsider Ext.P5 appeal and pass an order duly adverting to the contentions of both sides, I set aside Ext.P7 and direct the District Collector to consider Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. 4. Petitioner is directed to appear before the District Collector along with a copy of this judgment on 2/11/2010. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp