IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8781 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHIBU PUDUSSERY, S/O.K.K.PAPPACHAN, PUDUSSERY KATTALAN HOUSE, PERAMBRA, V.R.PURAM P.O., TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR. T.C.MOHANDAS MR. T.M.SUNIL MS. S.CHITHRA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR-680003. 2. SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, CHALAKUDY, TRICHUR-680 307. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 8781 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has purchased some property from the vendor mentioned in Ext. P1 sale deed, paying the agreed sale consideration. But the sale deed was refused to be registered by the second respondent, stating that, it was not in conformity with the 'fair value' fixed and notified and in trun demanded a higher stamp duty to be satisfied by the petitioner. This made the petitioner to approach the first respondent by filing appropriate proceedings. After taking note of the grievance projected by the petitioner and others concerned, the fair value fixed in respect of the concerned category was reduced from Rs. 6.5 lakhs to 4 lakhs, as evidenced by Ext. P3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of Ext. P3 order, the second respondent is refusing to register the sale deed, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. As per Section 28 of the Kerala Stamp Act, in order to make the 'fair value' fixed in appeal effective, it W.P. (C) No. 8781 of 2011 : 2 : has to be notified in the manner provided in the Act. The learned Government brought it to the notice of this Court that, similar issue had come up consideration of this Court in W.P(C) Nos. 944 of 2011 and 2624 of 2011, wherein final verdicts have been passed as to the above requirements, simultaneously giving appropriate directions to the concerned District Collector to cause it to be published as specified. 3. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of directing the first respondent to cause the fair value fixed as per Ext. P3 notified in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible. 4. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is stated as put to undue loss and hardships because of the non-acceptance of Ext. P1 sale deed, there will be a direction to the second respondent to accept Ext. P1 sale deed and to have it registered as and when Ext. P3 fair value is notified by the first respondent as mentioned hereinbefore. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of writ petition before the 1st and 2nd respondent for taking appropriate steps. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd