IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30659 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- MATHAI CHERIAN, SANKUPARAMBIL, PULIMOODU, MAVELIKKARA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690101. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) SRI.H.JAWHAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 4. TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA-690101. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30659 OF 2010 (F) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner holds Kuthakapattom lease of 12.5 cents of land in Sy.No.68/1 of Mavelikkara Village. In this writ petition,what the petitioner challenges is Exts.P2, P4, P6, P8 and P12 and also seeks a direction to give an opportunity to the petitioner for being heard in the matter of fixing of rent. 2. Ext.P2 is the receipt evidencing payment of the lease rental of Rs.20/-, which the petitioner paid way back in 1996. It would appear that the rental was revised later and Ext.P4 shows that in 1999, petitioner paid an amount of Rs.181 towards the rental. According to the petitioner, the rental was again revised and was fixed at Rs.400/- for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. This again was revised to Rs.722/- for the years 2004-05. This was revised and fixed at Rs.2,987/- for the period from 2005-06 till 2007-08. Representations made by the petitioner for reduction were rejected and the rate was again later revised for the year 2008-09 and Rs.4520/- paid by the petitioner was acknowledged by Ext.P13. WPC No. 30659/10 :2 : 3. First of all, as far as the rate at which lease is levied is covered by the provisions of Ext.P14, the Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Area Rules, 1995. Rule 12(5) reads as follows; 12(5) Lease Rent:- Annual lease rent shall be fixed at the rate of ten per cent (10%) of the market value of the land when it is used for non commercial purposes and twenty percent (20%) of the market value of the land when it is used for commercial purposes. If the lease applied for is non-objectionable, the lease rent for the period of lease proposed to be granted shall be remitted (within one month from the date of receipt of orders from the Assigning Authority). 4. Admittedly, the land in question is used for non commercial purposes. If that be so, what is payable by the petitioner is 10% of the market value. Petitioner has no case that the amount demanded from the petitioner is more than what is permissible under the Rules. If that be so, so long as the Rule remains in the statute, petitioner cannot challenge the amount demanded from him. Since the levy is thus governed by the statutory provisions, so long as there is no provision enabling him to claim an opportunity of hearing prior to fixation of market value, he cannot seek any such direction in this writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the WPC No. 30659/10 :3 : Apex Court in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004(3) SCC 214) and contended that the State cannot resort to profiteering in the matter of fixation of lease rentals. In that case, the Apex Court was concerned with the lease rental fixed by the Bombay Port Trust for leasing out its properties for port related activities. The judgment shows that there was no rule similar to Rule 12(5) prevailing in the Bombay Port Trust nor was the Apex Court concerned with the validity of any such fixation. The facts dealt with by the Apex Court is totally different. 6. That apart, on facts, it is seen that the market value fixed by the Government is Rs.17000 per year and it is on that basis, petitioner has been called upon to pay the rental as per Ext.P12. Such fixation also cannot be said to be arbitrary nor does it amount to profiteering. On that ground also, I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp