JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the Bench Mark Valuation fixed by the District Level Valuation Committee, Khurda in their meeting dated 11.06.2012 in respect of the area under the Khurda district under Rule 40(1) of the Orissa Stamp (Amendment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter called the 'Rules, 2001 ) and approval thereof by the Government of Odisha in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide letter dated 28.08.2012 and consequent Notification dated 31.08.2012 of the Sub-Registrar, Khurda, Bhubaneswar enhancing the Bench Mark Valuation (hereinafter referred to as 'BMV'). 2. The first writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 18036/2012, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the Capital Bar Association, Bhubaneswar challenging the aforesaid action of the opposite parties on various grounds particularly on the ground that the Bench Mark Valuation fixed by the opposite parties are not in accordance with the Orissa Stamp Act & Rules, therefore, it is prayed that the letter dated 28.08.2012 of the Government of Odisha and Notification dated 31.08.2012 under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the first writ petition is required to be quashed. 3. The second writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 18312/2012 has been filed by the petitioners, who are the vendor and vendee of a piece of property in Bhubaneswar, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid Notification dated 31.08.2012 and further to direct the Sub-Registrar, Khordha to register their sale deed in terms of the earlier Bench Mark Valuation dated 26.2.2011. 4. The case of the petitioners in the second writ petition in brief is that petitioner No.1. (vendor) wanted to sale a piece of property and executed the registered sale deed dated 13.09.2011 and presented it for registration, wherein petitioners disclosed the value of the land as per the Bench Mark Valuation fixed vide earlier Notification dated 26.2.2011. On presentation of the sale deed, the same was not registered by the Registering Authority on the ground of new Bench Mark Valuation fixed by the Committee vide aforesaid Notification dated 31.08.2012. Therefore, the Dist. Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khordha issued notice dated 17.9.2012 (Annexure-2) to the petitioners stating that the valuation of the land in question is undervalued as the Bench Mark Valuation of the said land fixed by the government under Rule 38(e) of the Rules, 2001 comes to Rs. Therefore, the Dist. Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khordha issued notice dated 17.9.2012 (Annexure-2) to the petitioners stating that the valuation of the land in question is undervalued as the Bench Mark Valuation of the said land fixed by the government under Rule 38(e) of the Rules, 2001 comes to Rs. 5.00 lakhs and as such the said deed is found to be undervalued in terms of B.M.V. of the property involving the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/-, therefore, petitioner was directed to pay the deficit Stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/-. It is stated by the petitioners that on receiving such notice petitioners found that the valuation disclosed in the said notice is 500% excess to the earlier Bench Mark Valuation dated 26.2.2011. It is submitted that the last revision of Bench Mark Valuation was made and given effect to by the Bench Mark Valuation Committee in the district of Khurda on 25.2.2011. In view of the provisions under Rule 40 of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called "the Stamp Rules") the period of revision has to be biennial that means further revision is not provided until further two years of last valuation is completed. Therefore, it is submitted that since the last revision of valuation was fixed on 25.2.2011 it has to be in force up to February, 2013. Therefore, the main contention of the petitioners in second writ petition is that as before completion of two years the impugned Notification has been issued enhancing the Bench Mark Valuation to an unreasonable extent, the impugned Notification is bad in the eye of law and is required to be quashed. 5. The case of the petitioner-Association in the first writ petition in brief is that a meeting of the District Level Valuation Committee (DLVC), Khurda was held on 11.05.2012 under the Chairmanship of Collector & District Magistrate, Khurda. In the said meeting the DLVC recommended biennial revision of the market value of the immovable properties in respect of villagers under the Khurda district under Rule 40(1) of the Rules, 2001. Thereafter, the Government of Odisha vide impugned communication dated 28.08.2012 has accorded the so called approval of the said recommendation of the DLVC. In pursuance thereof the District Sub-Registrar,. Khurda issued the impugned Notification dated 31.08.2012 directing implementation of the new guidelines and enhanced Bench Mark Valuation w.e.f 1.9.2012. Thereafter, the Government of Odisha vide impugned communication dated 28.08.2012 has accorded the so called approval of the said recommendation of the DLVC. In pursuance thereof the District Sub-Registrar,. Khurda issued the impugned Notification dated 31.08.2012 directing implementation of the new guidelines and enhanced Bench Mark Valuation w.e.f 1.9.2012. It is stated that in pursuance of powers conferred on the Collector under Rule 40(2) of the 2001 Rules, there was an order of 10% enhancement of the Bench Mark Valuation (BMV) w.e.f. 01.04.2012 which is communicated vide letter dated 29.03.2012 under Annexure-4 to the Addl. Sub-Registrar of Khurda. Therefore, it is submitted that the said order under Annexure-4 enhancing 10% BMV was a final order passed under Rule 40(2) of the 2001 Rules, therefore, the DLVC again cannot resort to their power under Rule 40(1) of the 2001 Rules and revise the BMV again vide impugned Notification dated 31.08.2012. Therefore, it is submitted that further exercise of power under Rule 40(1) of 2001 Rules can be resorted to only after six months from the last revision and not before that. 6. It is further stated that the communication of the Government under Annexure-1 shows that the DLVC meeting was held on 11.06.2012 for biennial revision of the market value of the immovable properties in respect of Khurda district under Rule 40(1) of 2001 Rules, but on the other hand the impugned Notification dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure-2) reflects that the said Notification is on the basis of the DLVC meeting held on 31.08.2012. 7. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner-Association that Rule 37 of the 2001. Rules deals with the Constitution of DLVC and Sub-District (Tahasil) level Valuation Committee and according to Rule 37(a)(vi) two public persons are to be nominated by the Chairman, one of whom should be an expert valuer or an expert familiar with principles and practices of valuation of land, building and other immovable properties. However, in the instant case the Chairman has nominated one Mr. Rabi Burma, a practicing Advocate of Khurda Bar and another Smt. Surama Satpathy, a Member of the Independent Party. None of them is an expert valuer or expert in the relevant field which is the mandate of Rule 31 of 2001 Rules. Therefore, it is submitted that the constitution of the DLVC is also bad in law. Rabi Burma, a practicing Advocate of Khurda Bar and another Smt. Surama Satpathy, a Member of the Independent Party. None of them is an expert valuer or expert in the relevant field which is the mandate of Rule 31 of 2001 Rules. Therefore, it is submitted that the constitution of the DLVC is also bad in law. It is further submitted that the said Committee was formed way back in the year 2007 and till date no attempt has been made to replace the said Committee with experts. It is contended by the petitioner-Association that the Committee should have taken into account the principles of valuation mentioned in the Appendix-II while revising or fixing the Bench Mark Valuation as enumerated under Rule 41 (1) of the 2001 Rules. For determination of BMV, the decision of DLVC will have civil consequences and the said Statutory Committee should have complied with the legal requirements as per Appendix-II, which has not been done by the Committee in the instant case while determining the BMV. 8. It is further contended that statutory obligation cast upon the Committee to issue public notice to bring it to the notice of public' and to examine the public officers as per Rule 45 of the 2001 Rules. However, there was no notice issued inviting objections from the interested persons in the instant case in compliance with Rule 45 nor any enquiry was conducted by the DLVC by recording statement of public officers which is very much essential. The Committee has not called the objectors to submit their objections for determining the BMV of the District for Registration of conveyance deeds. It is stated that the so called notice under Annexure-5 was never circulated nor displayed at any conspicuous place so as to make the public aware of their statutory obligation to file their objections to the proposed BMW as suggested in the notification. The Committee has not complied with the mandatory requirement of 2001 Rules before or while deciding the Bench Mark valuation. Therefore, it is prayed that this writ petition is required to be allowed quashing the impugned Notification. 9. Traversing the averments made in the writ petitions counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. The Committee has not complied with the mandatory requirement of 2001 Rules before or while deciding the Bench Mark valuation. Therefore, it is prayed that this writ petition is required to be allowed quashing the impugned Notification. 9. Traversing the averments made in the writ petitions counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Raising the objection with regard to-maintainability of the first writ petition filed by the Capital Bar Association, it is submitted that the Bar Association is nothing to do with the Bench Mark Valuation enhanced by the Government for the reason that it is neither affecting Members of the Bar Association nor they have any locus standi to file the writ petition. It is submitted that Khordha district is having nine Sub-Registrars offices out of which Dist. Sub-Registrar Office and Sub-Registrar Office, Khandagiri i.e. only two Sub-Registrars Offices are only functioning within the city limit of Bhubaneswar and the rest seven Sub-Registrar Offices are functioning in different parts of the district. The BMVs have been prepared for the entire district of Khurda and not for Bhubaneswar only. No objection has been received from any parts of the entire district either during the objection period or even after finalization of the BMV from any persons. Therefore, petitioner's Association, which is in no way connected with the affairs of the Bench Mark Valuation or affected thereby, should not have any grievance when the persons who would be affected are not before this Court. 10. It is also stated that the petitioners in the second writ petition can also raise no grievance in this writ petition for the reason that the Bench Mark Valuations have been prepared for the entire district of Khurdha and neither the petitioners in the second writ petition nor any other persons had raised any objection during the objection period nor even after finalization of Bench Mark Valuation. 11. It is further suited that the price of land situated within the developing city of Bhubaneswar is increasing at a high speed because of its geographical location and other developmental aspects. 11. It is further suited that the price of land situated within the developing city of Bhubaneswar is increasing at a high speed because of its geographical location and other developmental aspects. Further, the fixation of BMV and collection of stamp duty and registration fees on the basis of such valuation is only meant for augmentation of the State revenue which is spent for developmental purpose of the State, therefore, the fixation of BMV is an ingredient of the developmental process of the State which will help to enhance the Government revenue and strengthen the backbone of the State in socio-economic and infrastructural front, which will be in public interest and not against the public. 12. It is submitted by the opposite parties that prior to implementation of revised BMV, all procedures and formalities as required under the Rules and guidelines have been duly observed. After receipt of proposals of revised values of immovable properties from the respective Sub-District Tahasil Level Valuation Committees (SDTLVC) the same were thoroughly examined and finalized by the DLVC in its meeting dated 11.06.2012 and proclamation period of 30 days as per Rules, starting from 12.06.2012 to 11.07.2012 was fixed and it was published inviting objections, if any, from the public. No objection was received during that period. As no objection was received from the general public, after expiry of the said proclamation period, the proposals of village wise revised Bench Mark Valuation of the properties for entire district of Khordha were submitted to the State Government in prescribed proforma vide letter dated 04.08.2012. Thereafter, the revised BMVs were approved by the State Government vide impugned letter dated 28.08.2012. It was the instruction of the State Government that the BMV should be implemented with immediate effect. Therefore, the decision has been taken in the DLVC meeting held on 31.08.2012 to implement the revised BMV in the district w.e.f. 01.09.2012 and accordingly the impugned notice dated 31.08.2012 has been issued as per the order of the Chairperson of the DLVC. 13. It is further stated by the opposite parties that immediately after receiving the instructions from the Government in the Revenue & Disaster Management (R & DM) Department vide letter dated 31.03.2011 series of meetings at Sub-District Level and district level to work out the modalities for revision and fixation of BMV besides frequent field surveys were conducted. 13. It is further stated by the opposite parties that immediately after receiving the instructions from the Government in the Revenue & Disaster Management (R & DM) Department vide letter dated 31.03.2011 series of meetings at Sub-District Level and district level to work out the modalities for revision and fixation of BMV besides frequent field surveys were conducted. Due to vigorous industrial and urban development in and around Bhubaneswar and other parts of Khordha district, various categories of land are being acquired by the big industrialists as well as by the Government for different projects and because of the existing lower Bench Mark Valuations, the people will suffer to get their legitimate land value in the event of land acquisition and also the Government loose the substantial revenue as a result big industrialists or businessmen or land mafias will get the benefit. As in the meantime the market value of land of all categories have increased to the extreme point due to rapid progress in urban and industrial growth & its developments, as per the instructions of the State Government in its letter dated 31.03.2011, the Committee decided to increase the value of the land situated within a radius of 25 kms from the Bhubaneswar Municipal Council's area and 10 kms from Jatni and Khordha Municipality and in all other villages of the Khordha district keeping in vie all the criterion laid down in the 2001 Rules and the Bench Mark Valuations have been fixed by following due procedure prescribed under 2001 Rules. 14. Supporting the necessity of enhancement of BMV, it is stated that the main rationale for costing of land in Bhubaneswar Sub-Division is the rapid urbanization, industrialization and infrastructure building sweeping across the State has determining role in escalation of land prices in the capital city of Odisha and being the only city of the State having Airport, best of hospitals and best educational institutions and having growing companies in the IT sectors. Due to large influx of population, there is huge demand for residential and commercial land in the city and its periphery. The market value of the land in these days is enhanced to the extent beyond imagination. Due to large influx of population, there is huge demand for residential and commercial land in the city and its periphery. The market value of the land in these days is enhanced to the extent beyond imagination. It is stated that such factual aspects can be evident from certain documents like agreement of sale and advertisement issued by various developers quoting the rate of land per square feet, which is very much evident from the documents produced under Annexures G/3 and H/3. From the said documents it would be clear that taking into consideration the present market value of the land the revised BMV fixed by the Government is very low. A bare perusal of documents under Annexure-H/3 would clearly show that a particular piece of land has been agreed to be sold at the rate of 98 lakhs per acre in village Deuliapatna, whereas the present BMV for that area has been fixed at Rs. 30 lakhs per acre, much lesser than the present market value. Therefore, it is submitted that the allegation of the petitioners that the BMV has been fixed at a much enhanced rate is not at all correct. Placing reliance upon the said documents learned Government Advocate submits that the present petitioners are only taking into consideration the enhanced BMV, but not the present market value of the land in Bhubaneswar and in Khordha district. Further, the BMV has been enhanced taking into consideration the area, location and nature of land. The Bench Mark Valuation suggested to the Government in respect of entire district of Khordha is an outcome of a phased, systematic and structured exercises made at different levels. The deed writers and the Advocates are in no way affected by implementation of this new benchmark price except in the capacity of being general public. Further, the allegations made in these writ petitions are completely baseless. While determining the BMV, each and every provision of the 2001 Rules has been strictly followed. 15. The deed writers and the Advocates are in no way affected by implementation of this new benchmark price except in the capacity of being general public. Further, the allegations made in these writ petitions are completely baseless. While determining the BMV, each and every provision of the 2001 Rules has been strictly followed. 15. In reply to averments made at paragraph 4 of the First writ petition, it is stated by the opposite parties that as per Rule 40(1) of 2001 Rules, the periodical revision is two years (biennial) and as per Rule 40(2), the Collector & Chairman would enhance the value by 10% of the value so fixed, but if the District Valuation Committee for any reason could not be able to revise the valuation in time, such enhancement of 10% under Rule 40(2) cannot be considered as proper valuation of the land as the said enhancement is an interim revision for the time being and remain in force till regular revision is made by the Committee and implemented after approval by the Government. Therefore the allegation of the petitioners; that as there was revision' of BMV vide, letter dated 29.3.2012 by the Collector, no further revision can be made, is not at all correct reason being, that was an interim enhancement of 10% as per Rule 40(2) of 2001 Rules, and after fulfilling all the formalities as required under the Rules the regular revision has been made and the DLVC has fixed the BMV, which has duly been approved by the Government. Thereafter, as per the provisions of the guidelines issued by the Inspector General of Registration (IGR), Odisha, Cuttack in terms of Rule 47 of the 2001 Rules vide letter dated 21.5.2002, decision was taken by the DVLC in its meeting dated 11.06.2012 for issuance of notice and accordingly notice was issued on 12.06.2012 inviting objections within 30 days i.e. by 11.7.2012 and Sub-Collectors/Tahasildars/BDO/Commissioner BMC/ Secretary BDA etc. were requested to publish the notice at conspicuous places for information of general public. During the said proclamation period, no objection was received from the general public opposing the proposed BMV. Therefore, it is stated that, having not submitted the objection in time by any person, the petitioner Association has no locus standi to file the present writ petition questioning the correctness of the same before this Court. 16. During the said proclamation period, no objection was received from the general public opposing the proposed BMV. Therefore, it is stated that, having not submitted the objection in time by any person, the petitioner Association has no locus standi to file the present writ petition questioning the correctness of the same before this Court. 16. It is further stated that as per Rule 38(e) of the 2001 Rules, after approval by the State Government, the Committee shall issue the market value guidelines for different areas of its own District without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act. Accordingly, after obtaining approval of revised BMV from the State Government vide letter dated 28.8.2012, the DLVC held its meeting on 31.8.2012 to discuss the matter to notify and implement the revised BMV and immediately notice was issued on the same date i.e. on 31.8.2012 for implementation of the revised BMV. Therefore, allegation of the petitioners as made at paragraph 5 of the writ petition is not at all correct. In reply to the allegations made at paragraph 6 of the writ petition with regard to the Constitution of DLVC, it is submitted that two members namely, Mr. Ravi Burma and Smt. Surama Satpathy have been continuing as the Members of the DLVC since 2007. Nowhere in the Rules it is mentioned that the Members of the Committee shall be replaced each time. Since 2007 till date there was no allegation against any of those members. Traversing the averments made at paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated by the opposite parties that the revision has been conducted strictly in consonance with the principles for determination of market value as provided under Appendix-II under Rule 41 of 2001 Rules and special features for valuation on the basis of reports received from various revenue field functionaries who collected such information on the basis of field verification via-a-vis the study of village maps as well as the information gathered from the local people and taking into consideration all other factors. Further, as no representation/objection was received from any quarter within the proclamation period, issuing summons to any public for recording statements does not arise. Further, as no representation/objection was received from any quarter within the proclamation period, issuing summons to any public for recording statements does not arise. However, a representation received from the Members of ."Rajadhani Dalil Lekhaka Sangha•" after the proclamation period is over has been disposed of and communicated to them and so far as the' representation from the petitioner's Association, which is originally addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Odisha, that too after lapse of the proclamation period is under examination at higher forum. 17. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Manoj Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010) it is stated by the opposite parties that in order to ensure that there is no evasion of stamp duty, circle rates are fixed from time to time and the notification is issued to that effect. The issuance of said notification has become imperative to arrest the tendency of evading the payment of actual stamp duty on the conveyance deeds. Further petitioner's Association is no way affected by implementation of the revised BMV. The revised BMV has been operationalized in the entire district of Khordha w.e.f. 1.9.2012 and except the District Registration Office at Bhubaneswar in other places of entire district; registration of documents has been going on without any resistance. But, only in Bhubaneswar due to the agitation by the Bar Members and Deed Writers, the general public who are the land owners and are not objecting to this revision are being prevented from approaching the Registering Officers for registration of their documents. Therefore, it is submitted by the opposite parties that the writ petition is baseless and petitioner's Association has no locus standi to challenge the same and to prevent the intending general public from registering their documents. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petitions may be rejected: 18. With reference to the aforesaid factual and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties the following points arise for consideration for this Court: (1) Whether the Bar Association has got the locus standi to maintain the first writ petition? (2) Whether the second writ petition filed by two vendor and vendee seeking the self same relief is maintainable? (3) Whether the constitution of the DLVC for determination of the BMV is in conformity with Rule37 of the Rules? (2) Whether the second writ petition filed by two vendor and vendee seeking the self same relief is maintainable? (3) Whether the constitution of the DLVC for determination of the BMV is in conformity with Rule37 of the Rules? (4) Whether the Committee has complied with Rules 41 and 45 read with Appendix II of the Rules at the time of fixing the BMV ? (5) Whether non-compliance with the aforesaid provisions entail the impugned orders to be quashed? (6) What order? 19. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. The Supreme Court in. catena of decisions, one of them in Jasbhai Motibhai Desa.i v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578 , the Apex Court has held that only a person who is aggrieved by an order, can maintain, a writ petition. The expression "aggrieved person'" has been explained by the Apex Court observing that such a person, must show that he has more particular or peculiar interest on his own beyond that of general public in seeing that the law is properly administered. 20. In the instant cases, so far as the petitioners in the second writ petition are concerned, they are the vendor and vendee of a piece of property and executed the registered sale deed dated 13.9.2011 and presented it for registration, wherein petitioners disclosed the value of the land as per the Bench Mark Valuation fixed vide earlier Notification dated 26.2.2011. On presentation of the sale deed, the same was not registered by the Registering Authority on the ground of the revised Bench Mark Valuation dated 31.08.2012 and thereafter issued notice dated 17.9.2012 (Annexure-2) to the petitioners indicating the under valuation of the said deed in terms of B.M.V. of the property involving the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/- and directed to pay the said deficit stamp duty. It is stated by the petitioners that on receiving such notice petitioners found that the valuation disclosed in the said notice is 500% excess to the earlier Bench Mark Valuation dated 26.2.2011 fixed by the State .Government. Being aggrieved on the same the petitioners in the second writ petition have approached this Court seeking the relief. Therefore, definitely they are the aggrieved persons, who can maintain the second writ petition. Being aggrieved on the same the petitioners in the second writ petition have approached this Court seeking the relief. Therefore, definitely they are the aggrieved persons, who can maintain the second writ petition. Hence the point No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners in second writ petition. 21. It is also a well settled proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decision that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the respondents. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement on which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. This Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietor Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1962 SC 1044 ; Mani Subrat Jain and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276 ; State of Kerala v. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty and others, AIR 1987 SC 331 ; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736 ; Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 3104 ;& Utkal University v. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 943 . In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 298 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of locus standi observed as under: "Our current processual jurisprudence is not an individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through 'class actions', 'Public Interest Litigation', and representative proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in larger numbers seeking remedies in Courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. It is broad based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through 'class actions', 'Public Interest Litigation', and representative proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in larger numbers seeking remedies in Courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions." 22. In the case on hand, the Capital Bar Association, Bhubaneswar, which have filed the first writ petition is definitely a person not directly affected or aggrieved in the present BMV, but the Association has filed the writ petition on a representative capacity taking into consideration the interest of large number of people of the district and ventilating the grievance through this writ petition that the statutory authorities, while fixing the BMV, have not acted in the manner in accordance with the Rules, which they are required to do, thereby there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement on which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. Therefore; though the petitioner's Association is not directly affected, as the Members of the Association who are in the legal profession, when they feel that the statutory authority has taken certain action without following the statutory provisions and rule of law has been violated, they have brought it to the notice of this Court for its interference and grant of relief as prayed for in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the Bar Association cannot be thrown away merely on the technical plea and ground that the association is not the affected party, and accordingly the same is required to be considered on merits and it is necessary to pass appropriate orders that may warrant in the case on hand. Accordingly, both point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioners. 23. Accordingly, both point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioners. 23. By a careful reading of Rule 37 of 2001 Rules, which clearly provides that two public persons are to be nominated by the Chairman to the DLVC and as per trot note to the said Rule, one of the nominees between the said two persons be preferably an expert valuer or an expert familiar with principles and practices of valuation of land, buildings and other immovable properties. If we give a careful and purposive interpretation to the said Rule and the Note thereof, it would make clear that one of the nominee of the Chairman should be an expert valuer, who can make the correct valuation of the property taking into consideration the present market value of the land and the principles of Bench Mark Valuation and present his suggestions before the Committee to take proper decision in the matter for fixing the correct Bench Mark Value of the properties. Learned Government Advocate, placing reliance upon the counter of the opposite parties, submits that one of nominee of the Chairman is a Civil Lawyer who knows the principles of valuation of land and another person is a social activist. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions that either one of the nominees are not the expert valuer. It is stated that a lawyer cannot be treated as an expert valuer of the land. Further, the nominees, who were nominated by the Chairman in the year 2007 are continuing till date. The present Chairman could have nominated one of the best expert land valuer as her nominee in accordance with Rule 37 who could have given the best suggestion while determining the revised BMV in question by the Committee. Therefore, we are of the view that Constitution of the Committee is not in accordance with Rule 37, particularly in view of selection of the nominees by the Chairman. Accordingly Point No.3 is answered against the opposite parties and in favour of the petitioners. 24. Before answering Point No.4, it would be necessary to extract Rules 41 and 45 of the 2001 Rules, which read thus: "41. Accordingly Point No.3 is answered against the opposite parties and in favour of the petitioners. 24. Before answering Point No.4, it would be necessary to extract Rules 41 and 45 of the 2001 Rules, which read thus: "41. Procedure to prepare Market value guidelines - While working out the values of immovable properties, the respective Committee shall take into account the principle of valuation mentioned the Appendix II and such other instructions issued/to be issued by Government from time to time." 45. Summons to the public, Public Officers and recording statement by the Committee - The Committee after serving of the notices, if they think fit to do so, record the statement of the persons and for the purpose of enquiry: (a) May call for any information or record from any public office or officers or Authority under the State/Central Government or any local authority or Statutory authority. (b) May record statement from any Member of the public office or authority as mentioned under clause (a) (c) May call the parties to be present on the date specified in the notice and on such other date as may be fixed by it. 25. Rule 41 makes it clear that while fixing the value of immovable properties the Committee must lake into consideration the principle of valuation as mentioned in Appendix II, which provides some principles & characteristics for valuation of the property, along with other relevant criteria and such other instructions issued/to be issued by Government from time to time. Further, Appendix II clarifies that while the characterization preferred in the said appendix cannot be called exhaustive of the various facts of a property, it is necessary to be selected in choosing a few characteristics out of many of the system to be practicable. However, as it appears from the records produced by the opposite parties that, all those aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration properly by the DLVC. It is submitted by the opposite parties that price of land situated within the developing city of Bhubaneswar is increasing at a high speed because of its geographical location and other developmental aspects and taking into consideration all those facts also the BMV has been fixed by the Committee. It is submitted by the opposite parties that price of land situated within the developing city of Bhubaneswar is increasing at a high speed because of its geographical location and other developmental aspects and taking into consideration all those facts also the BMV has been fixed by the Committee. No doubt it is true that the authority must take into consideration all those aspects also, but the principles laid down under Rules 41 and 45 shall also be adhered to by the Committee at the time of fixing BMV for the property. Further, as it appears from the records that the Committee has not properly adhered to Rule 45 also. In view of the said rule there is a statutory obligation cast upon the Committee to issue public notice and to examine public officer by recording their statement. It is submitted by the opposite parties that notice was issued following the due procedure under the Rules, but as no objection was received from any public, issuing summons to any public for recording statements does not arise. The said statement cannot be appreciated by this Court for the reason that Rule 45 provides for summons not only to the public but also to Public Officers. Therefore, if any public is not available, the Committee must have summoned the appropriate public officers, but the same has not been done. 26. It is well settled preposition of law that when the statute provides for a particular procedure to do a particular thing in a particular manner, the authority has to follow the same. Therefore, if any public is not available, the Committee must have summoned the appropriate public officers, but the same has not been done. 26. It is well settled preposition of law that when the statute provides for a particular procedure to do a particular thing in a particular manner, the authority has to follow the same. The Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and the Supreme Court in the cases of Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527 ; Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakhshmi Devi, AIR 1963 SC 1077 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573 ; State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna, AIR 1980 SC 327; Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 486 ; and Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657 have observed that it has been either to uncontroverted legal position that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on legal maxim" Expressio un ius est exclusio alterius" meaning, thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular, then it has to be done in that manner, otherwise it would not have the sanctity in the eye of law. 27. For the reasons stated supra, we are of the view that the Committee has not properly followed principles laid down under Rules 41 and 45 and hence point Nos. 4 and 5 are also answered against the opposite parties. As we have answered point Nos. 3 to 5 against the opposite parties, the impugned Notification dated 31.08.2012 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Level Valuation Committee Khordha for fresh consideration of the matter. The Chairman shall reconstitute the Committee by choosing two best suitable nominees strictly in compliance with Rule 37 of 2001 Rules. 3 to 5 against the opposite parties, the impugned Notification dated 31.08.2012 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Level Valuation Committee Khordha for fresh consideration of the matter. The Chairman shall reconstitute the Committee by choosing two best suitable nominees strictly in compliance with Rule 37 of 2001 Rules. Further, while quashing the impugned Notification, we must also see that the revenue of the State shall not go on wasted because it is being utilized for the development of State for the benefit of the people and different weaker strata of the society in the State and with that revenue, the welfare activities will get a fillip and shot in the arm. Financial constraints may weaken the tempo of activities of the State. Therefore, we direct the opposite parties-authorities to constitute the Committee immediately and proceed in fixing the revised Bench Mark Valuation duly following the relevant procedure contemplated under the Rules and also taking into consideration the market value of the immovable properties prevailing in the different parts of the district and other relevant aspects of the matter in accordance with law and to see that the entire process of fixing revised Bench Mark Valuation must be completed as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. In the result the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Before parting with the judgment, we feel it right to make certain observations that is warranted for future guidance. Our Constitution provides for an independent and efficient justice delivery system to render justice to the people of the country and others. The dispensation of justice must not be stopped for any reason. Members of the legal fraternity as important as that of the Judges of the judicial system and they are required to protect the interest of the general public as well as the Nation, therefore, they are always termed as learned and belong to the noble profession. The dispensation of justice must not be stopped for any reason. Members of the legal fraternity as important as that of the Judges of the judicial system and they are required to protect the interest of the general public as well as the Nation, therefore, they are always termed as learned and belong to the noble profession. However, it is noticed that raising voice against the revised Bench Mark Valuation in question, Members of the petitioners' Association as well as the Deed Writers have boycotted both the District as well as Sub-Registrars Office & Registration works, even though the BMV Notification has been challenged before this Court seeking the relief to quash the same, and for that reason large number of people as well as the government revenue have been affected. Therefore, we hope and trust that the learned Members of the Bar Associations will refrain themselves from such kind of practice in future and if they feel aggrieved, they can challenge the same in accordance with law and get redressal of the public grievance by approaching the appropriate court of law to protect the public interest and to see that rule of law shall prevail in the Democratic country. Further, the Deed Writers, who are the licence holders under the Government must also refrain themselves from preventing the general public from registering the documents, who want to register the same, in future. I agree. Petition allowed to the extent indicated.