The court determined that the grounds for rent calculation should abide by the applicable assignment rules and allowed for an appeal to be filed despite previous delays.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2026 The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext. P8 order and the consequential Ext.P9 demand notice.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, as is evident from Ext.P1, the land in question is Kuthakapattam property and that the petitioner had already approached the authorities for assignment of the said land. However, that application was rejected by Ext.P4 order stating that the property, being puramboke land belonging to the National Highway, could not be assigned. It was also observed that the petitioner had only leasehold rights over the property and that it could not be assigned to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application was rejected. However, in the absence of the petitioner having approached the authorities for renewal of the lease, the lease rent was assessed by the District Collector as per the Ext. P8 order under the provisions of the Rules for Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Area , 1995 (in short ‘the Rules 1995’).

3. The primary challenge raised in the writ petition is with respect to the applicability of the ground rent fixed under the provisions of the said Rules as evident in Ext.P8. According to the petitioner, the applicable ground rent is governed by the Kuthakapattam Rules , 1947 under which the rate applicable to the said property falls under Schedule 1, applicable to dry or garden land, at the rate of Rs.50 per 40.47 Ares per annum. However, the calculation is effected in the impugned order as per the provisions of the Rules 1995, applying rates of 10% and 5% depending upon the commercial and non commercial nature of the land, respectively. Accordingly, the ground rent for the said property has been fixed as per Ext.P8 and a demand has been raised as per Ext.P9. These are the orders under challenge. Altogether an amount of Rs.21,14,317/- has been demanded.

4. However, Rule 18 of the Rules 1995 provides for an appeal and reads as follows:

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Board of Revenue against and order passed by the Assigning Authority or to the Government against an order passed by the Board of Revenue, as the case may be.

(2) The appeal shall be filed within 30 days of receipt of the order by which the appellant is affected.

Provided that, the appellate authority may on his discretion admit a belated appeal if he is satisfied that there is sufficient grounds to condone the delay.

In view of the said provision, it appears that Ext.P8 impugned order is an appealable order. Since the matter involves disputed questions of fact and, as is evident from Ext.P1, the property was in the custody of the petitioner under the Kuthakapattam Rules , 1947, the issue relating to fixation of ground rent under the provisions of the Rules 1995 can more appropriately be decided by the appellate authority while considering the appeal. For that purpose, the petitioner shall prefer an appeal.

However, the delay that occurred in challenging the same shall stand condoned in view of the pendency of the writ petition from 10.08.2018 until the date of this order, and the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner under Rule 18 of the Rules 1995 within a period of two weeks. In the event that the petitioner prefers an appeal under the said provision, the appeal shall be considered by the said authority within a further period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till a decision is taken by the Land Revenue Commissioner, the stay ordered by this Court on 13.08.2018 shall continue to be in force.