IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of orders of higher appellate authorities on subordinate authorities and the importance of adhering to the principles of judicial discipline.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts. P10 and P11 Revenue Recovery notices issued by the 5th respondent herein by which an amount of Rs.4,93,992/- is sought to be recovered solely on the basis of certain audit objections raised by the 4th respondent herein.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner, who claims to be the owner and in possession of 20 cents of land comprised in Sy. Nos.1692/8 & 9 of Nedumangad Village and Taluk, constructed a 3 storeyed building in the said property, on the basis of a building permit issued by the local authority. After the construction was completed, on 28.01.2002, the Village Officer, Nedumangad, issued a notice to the petitioner, pointing out that 2 pillars of the building-1st and 11th-are abutting the puramboke land by 20cms. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application to the 3rd respondent for assigning that portion of that land allegedly encroached on and used by him. Later, it was pointed out that the petitioner applied for a lease under Rule 12 of the Assignment of Land Within Municipality and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short). By Ext. P1 order, the 3rd respondent granted sanction of lease of 1.64 cents of land. The rent payable was fixed at 10% of the market value of the land. Altogether, an amount of Rs.1,80,192/- was demanded from the petitioner. It is pointed out that on receipt of Ext. P1, the petitioner submitted Ext. P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent herein. Along with the filing of the appeal as above, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is remitted by the petitioner.

3. The appeal filed, as above, is disposed of by the 2nd respondent herein by Ext. P5 order dated 01.12.2005. In this order, the 2nd respondent has found as under:

“Findings:

1. The appellant need be assessed lease rent and prohibitory assessment only from 1.9.98 as there is no proof that he has been in occupation of the above property prior to that date.

2. The market value of the property fixed is too high as it is not on the road side but is a thodu puramboke. Therefore a value of Rs.25,000/- would be fare.

ORDER

In the light of this findings, the Tahsildar may reassess the lease rent payable by the lease holder.”

It is also pointed out that the amount payable is reassessed by the 5th respondent on the basis of Ext. P5 and the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.542/- more, apart from Rs.25,000/- already paid.

4. Later, the 4th respondent carried out an audit and observed that the findings in Ext.P5 order by which the amount payable was re-worked may not be correct. According to the 4th respondent, the amount payable towards prohibitory assessment/fine would be Rs.4,93,992/- calculated for the period from 01.01.1986. This is reflected in Ext.P6 letter of the 2nd respondent addressed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, seeking guidance in the matter. The Government addressed the 2nd respondent by Ext.P8 dated 25.05.2011, directing the 2nd respondent to substantiate his stand with the 4th respondent herein and to get the objection dropped. However, by Exts P10 and P11, recovery proceedings were taken by the 5th respondent herein, which compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition.

5. A counter affidavit dated 22.05.2013 is filed by the 4th respondent, wherein it is pointed out that the findings in Ext.P5 are not acceptable, since the petitioner has admitted that he had possession of the land ‘puramboke’ from 1986 onwards, as seen from the letter dated 27.01.2005, produced as Ext.R4 (a). The counter affidavit also makes detailed reference to the calculation by the 4th respondent. Another counter affidavit dated 11.06.2015 is also filed by the 1st respondent, justifying the proceedings initiated.

6. I have heard Sri.B. Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Rashmi K. M., the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

7. The learned coun