IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 OP.No. 25607 of 2002(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K. SADASIVAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAN PILLAI, MARTHANDANKUZHI VEEDU, SREEVARAHAM, MANAKAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANCHIYOOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 25607/2002-W: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 43507/2002 IN O.P. NO.25607/2002-W DISMISSED 27/09/2010. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A3.1878/84 DTD. 02/03/84 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.37 DTD. 18/02/1994 ACCEPTING RENT FOR THE PERIOD 1992-93. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 25607 of 2002 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P3, requiring him to remit an amount of Rs.2,46,686/-. From the pleadings, it would appear that the petitioner has kuthakapattam lease of 630 sq.links of puramboke land in Survey No.616 of Vanchiyoor village, where the petitioner is conducting a small bunk shop. 2. According to the petitioner, based on the periodical revisions, he was paying the kuthakapattam lease. However, by Ext.P3, he was called upon to remit Rs.2,46,686/-. It is stated in the notice that Rs.61,044/- was due for the period from 04-02-1990 to 13-11-1995 and that Rs.1,85,642/- was due for the period from 14-11-1995 to July/2001. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, the said demand has been made in terms of Rule 8(4) of the Kuthakapattam Rules. 4. Petitioner submits that the lease rent now claimed is exorbitant. Petitioner submits that, at any rate, being a bunk shop owner, the said demand is beyond his means. OP.25607/02 : 2 : 5. As per Rule 8(4), the lessees are bound to pay the prescribed percentage of the market value of the land, which is liable for revision in every 12 years. However, although it may be well within the power of the respondents to demand revised lease rent, still, having regard to the amount involved and also taking note of the petitioner's case that he is only a bunk shop owner incapable of paying such a huge rent, I feel that before issuing such an exorbitant demand on the petitioner, petitioner should have been issued a notice and he ought to have been heard. This is so for the further reason that the demand is for a retrospective period as well. 6. In that view of the matter, while I leave it open to the respondents to quantify and demand the amount due for the petitioner, I direct that before any demand is made, the petitioner shall be issued a notice and he shall be heard. For that purpose, I quash Ext.P3. The original petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks OP.25607/02 : 3 : ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 25607 of 2002 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````` J U D G M E N T 27th day of September, 2010