Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 338 (MP)

Shailendra Soni v. State of M. P.

2011-03-14

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. By means of this petition, tiled as a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has challenged the valuation of the property for the purpose of registration of sale deed/transfer deed fixed by the concerned authorities contained in the notification appended as Annex. P/1to the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner has already made a representation, a copy whereof is appended as Annex. P/2 to the writ petition before the concerned respondent and, therefore, in terms of the stand taken in the return filed on behalf of the respondents that against an order fixing valuation of the property for the purposes of registration of sale deed, a representation lies under Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2000 for brevity), this petition may be disposed of with the direction to decide the same. 4. On other hand, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the aforesaid, representation as claimed to have been filed, contained in Annex. P/2, is not before the appropriate authority in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2000. which provides that the representation is to be filed before the Inspector General of Registration. Besides that, he submitted that a draft valuation of the property was notified and objections were invited in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar', yet nobody filed objection including the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid draft valuation of the property was in respect of the year 200809 and therefore, another draft valuation of the property for the year 2009-10 has already been notified and, thus, this petition has lost its efficacy. 5. The apex Court in the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another v. C.K. Rajan and others, (2003) 7 SCC 546 , has held that where a statutory remedy is available, public interest litigation should not be entertained. 6. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has a remedy under Rule II of the Rules of 2000. therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, we provide that in the event the petitioner makes a representation before the appropriate authority, the same may be considered and disposed of finally in accordance with law expeditiously. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.