High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 08 KL CK 0240

Sarasa vs District Collector, Alappuzha 688 001, Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha 688 001 and Sub Registrar, Sub Registry Office, Kuthiyathode 688 001

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 22 August 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) . No. 19793 of 2012 (Y)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 449 words

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

APPENDIX

PETITIONER''S EXHIBITS:

P1

True copy of the agreement dtd. 15.04.2012 with Petitioner''s husband and Mr. Madhu.

P2

True copy of the sketch dtd. 11.01.2000 prepared by the village officer, aroor.

P3

True copy of the notification dtd. 6.3.2010 in no.515(6) issued by the Govt. of Kerala.

P4

True copy of the appeal dtd. 14.5.2012 submitted before the 2nd respondent by the petitioner.

P5

True copy of the appeal submitted in july, 2012 before the ist respondent by the petitioner.

P6

True copy of the appeal in form ''b'' dtd. 23.7.2012 submitted by the petitioner''s husband.

RESPONDENT�S EXHIBITS

NIL

1.

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the District Collector to take a decision on Ext. P6 appeal filed under Rule 5(V) read with Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act. The dispute is with regard to the fair value in respect of the property included in Sy. Nos.44/2-1-2 and 44/2- 1-3 of Aroor Village. The petitioner''s husband has entered into an agreement for sale for purchase of 1.31 ares of property. The total sale consideration of the transaction is Rs.5,10,000/-. The nature of the land is shown as waterlogged, without any direct access to the road and without access to even a public pathway. It is a low lying one also. According to the petitioner, now stamp duty has been directed to be paid in proportion to the fair value totalling to Rs.7,86,000/- (Rs.6 lakhs per are). It is in this context the petitioner filed a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer initially as per Ext.P4 and there after preferred an appeal before the first respondent, as per Ext.P5. Actually it was not in the form prescribed and hence the petitioner preferred another appeal before the first respondent in the form prescribed, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of the agreement expires on 14.10.2012 and therefore unless a direction is issued to dispose of the appeal within a time frame, the petitioner will be put to great hardship.

2.

In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 appeal, especially in the light of the urgency shown by the petitioner, so that the same is disposed of before 25.9.2012 and it will be seen that the order issued on the appeal is communicated to the petitioner without any delay. The petitioner will be offered an opportunity of hearing.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition for compliance.