Aparna.K.A. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Sub Division, Adoor; Grama Panchayat of Aruvappulam, represented by its Secretary; The Secretary, Grama Panchayat of Aruvappulam; Village Officer, Aruvappulam; Kunjumol Thomas

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 4TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C)No.9735 OF 2020(N)** ## **PETITIONER:** **APARNA.K.A., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. PRADEEP KUMAR, THADATHIL VEEDU, KADAMANITTA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 649.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE SUB DIVISION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 523.** - **2 THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT OF ARUVAPPULAM, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ARUVAPPULAM P.O., KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 691 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT OF ARUVAPPULAM, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ARUVAPPULAM P.O., KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DSTRICT-689 691.** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OF ARUVAPPULAM, ARUVAPPULAM P.O., KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 691.** - **5 KUNJUMOL THOMAS,** - **AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PADAPPAKKAL VEEDU, ARUVAPPULAM P.O., AND MURI, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DSTRICT-689 691.** **R5 BY ADV. SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000)** **SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; SRI.MANSOOR B.H ; SRI.C.B SREEKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 40.47 Ares of property in Survey No.535/2B1-5 of Aruvappulam Village, covered by Partition Deed No.2508/1994 of the Sub Registrar Office, Konni has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 notice dated 27.04.2020 issued by the 3[rd] respondent, who is the Secretary of the 2[nd] respondent Aruvappulam Grama Panchayat, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, as authorised by the Village Panchayat, whereby the petitioner is required to cut and remove the branches of five rubber trees standing on her property, within 15 days from the date of intimation of order, failing which appropriate proceedings will be initiated against her under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 2. On 08.05.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 4. The learned Standing Counsel for Aruvappulam Grama Panchayat took W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -3- notice for respondents 2 and 3. Notice by speed post was ordered to the 5[th] respondent. This Court granted an interim stay of Ext.P7 notice for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 3. The 5[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to that counter affidavit. 4. By the order dated 25.08.2020, the learned Standing Counsel for Aruvappulam Grama Panchayat was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court materials to substantiate the fact that Ext.P7 notice issued by the 3[rd] respondent is based on a decision taken by the Village Panchayat, after conducting site inspection. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent. 6. By Ext.P7 notice issued by the 3[rd] respondent, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, as authorised by the Village W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -4- Panchayat, the petitioner is required to cut and remove the branches of five rubber trees standing on her property, within 15 days from the date of intimation of order. Ext. P7 notice reads thus; നന : എ 6-915/19 തതീയതത:27/04/2020 നനനടതസസ 1994 ലല നകേരള പഞനോയതസ രനോജസ ആകസ ലസക്ഷൻ 238 1 (എ), ദുരന നതവനോരണ നതയമന 2005 ലസക്ഷൻ 30 (2) (V) എനതവ പ്രകേനോരന പതനനതതട ജതല്ലയതൽ നനോരങനോരന ഗനോമ പഞനോയതതൽ കേടമ്മനതട പത ഒ, തടതതൽ വതീടതൽ അപർണ ലകേ എ എനയനോലള ലതരര്യലപ്പെടുത്തുനതസ അരുവനോപ്പുലന ഗനോമ പഞനോയതതൽ അരുവനോപ്പെലന വതനല്ലജതൽ 6107-10-ാനോാന നമ്പർ തണ്ടനപ്പെരുനപടത തനോങ്കളുലട ഉടമസ് യതലുള വസ്തുവതൽ നതൽക്കുന 5 മൂടസ റബ്ബർ മരങൾ തങളുലട വതീടതനസ ഭതീഷണതയനോലണനസ കേനോണതചസ അരുവനോപ്പുലന പടപ്പെയ്ക്കൽ വതീടതൽ ശതീമതത കേഞ്ഞുനമനോൾ നതനോമസസ സമർപ്പെതച പരനോതതയുലട അടതസനോനതതൽ ഈ ആഫതീസതൽ നതനന നടതതയ അനനന്വേഷണതതൽ പരനോതത-സനഗതത സതര്യമനോലണനസ നബനോദര്യലപ്പെടതട്ടുണ്ടസ. ടത പരനോതതയുമനോയത ബന്ധലപ്പെടസ പരനോതതകനോരത ബഹ അടൂർ ആർ ടത ഒ യ നൽകേതയ പരനോതതയുലടയുന, തനോങ്കൾ ബഹ. നകേരള ഹഹൈനകനോടതതയതൽ നൽകേതയ നകേസതലന വതധത പകേർപ്പെതലനയുന അടതസനോനതതൽ പരനോതത സലതസ വതീണന അനനന്വേഷണന നടത്തുകേയുന തനോങ്കനളയുന പരനോതതകനോരതലയയുന 15.02.2020 നനരതൽ നകേൾക് യുന ലചെലയങ്കതലുന പരനോതത പരതഹൈരതകനോൻ കേഴതയനോതതതനനോൽ 02.03.2020 ൽ കൂടതയ പഞനോയതസ കേമ്മറത ടത പരനോതതയതൻനമൽ 1994 ലല നകേരള പഞനോയതസ രനോജസ ആകസ ലസക്ഷൻ 238 പ്രകേനോരന നടപടത സന്വേതീകേരതക്കുനതതനസ ലസക്രടറതലയ ചുമതലലപ്പെടുതത 3(1) നമ്പരനോയത തതീരുമനോനതചതട്ടുണ്ടസ. ആയതതനനോൽ ഈ അറതയതപ്പെസ കേതടത 15 ദതവസതതനകേന പരനോതതകസ കേനോരണമനോയ വൃക്ഷങളുലട ശതഖരങൾ മുറതചസ നതീകത ആ വതവരന നരഖനോമൂലന ഈ ആഫതീസതൽ അറതയതനകണ്ടതനോണസ. അല്ലനോതപക്ഷന തനോങ്കൾലകതതലര നകേരളനോ W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -5- പഞനോയതസ ആകസ ലസക്ഷൻ 238 1 (ബത) പ്രകേനോരമുള നടപടതകേൾ സന്വേതീകേരതക്കുനതനോലണനള വതവരന ഇതതനനോൽ അറതയതക്കുന. ഈ വതഷയതതൻ നമൽ തനോങ്കൾകസ ഈ ആഫതീസതൽ നതനന ഇനതലയനോരു അറതയതപ്പെസ നൽകുനതനോല്ലനോലയനള വതവരവന തനോങ്കലള അറതയതക്കുന. 7. As discernible from Ext.P7 notice, it is one issued based on decision No.3(1) taken by the Village Panchayat in its meeting held on 02.03.2020. Decision No.3(1) of the Village Panchayat dated 02.03.2020 reads thus; ## അരവനപലന ഗനമപഞനയതസ 2/3/20 തതീയതത നടന സനോധനോരണ മതീറതനഗതലല 3(1) നമ്പർ തതീരുമനോനന അരുവനോപ്പുലന ഗനോമപഞനോയതതൽ പടപ്പെയ്ക്കൽ വതീടതൽ ശതീമതത കുഞ്ഞുനമനോൾ നതനോമസസ എനയനോളുലട തനോമസവതീടതനന സമതീപ നറനോഡതലൂലട കേടനനപനോകുന ഇലകതകസ ഹലൻ, സർവതീസസ വയറുകേൾ, എനതവയന ഭതീഷണതയനോയത നതൽക്കുന റബ്ബർ മരങളുലട ശതഖരങൾ മുറതചസ നതീക്കുനതസ പഞനോയതസ സന്വേതീകേരതച നടപടതലകതതലര അരുവനോപ്പുലന ഗനോമപഞനോയതസ, ലസക്രടറത എനതവലര പ്രതതനചെർതസ കേടമ്മനതട തടതതൽ വതീടതൽ അപർണ ലകേ.എ.ബഹ നകേരളനോ ഹഹൈനകനോടതതയതൽ ഫയൽ ലചെയ WP(C) No.35789/2019 നമ്പർ നകേസതലല വതധതകനസരണമനോയത 15.12.2020 ൽ ഹവസസ പ്രസതഡനതലന സനോനതധര്യതതൽ കൂടതയ അപ്പെതീൽ കേമ്മതറതയതൽ പരനോതതകനോരതകസ നവണ്ടത ഹൈനോജരനോയ ടതയനോളുലട ഭർതനോവനോയ ശതീ പ്രദതീപസ കുമനോർ വത., നകേസതൽ പ്രതതനചെർതതട്ടുള ശതീമതത കുഞ്ഞുനമനോൾ നതനോമസസ എനതവലര നനരതൽ നകേൾക് യുന എനനോൽ ഒത് തീർപ്പെതൽ എതനോലത പതരതഞതട്ടുളതുമനോണസ. ബഹ ആർ.ഡത.ഒ. യുലട 25.11.2019 ലല ബത28440/19 നമ്പർ കേതസ പ്രകേനോരന ലഭതചതട്ടുള അരുവനോപ്പുലന വതനല്ലജസ ഓഫതീസറുലട ഈ വതഷയതതനന്മേലുള റതനപ്പെനോർടതൻ പ്രകേനോരന അരുവനോപ്പുലന വതനല്ലജതൽ കേനോർതതകേമനഗലന വതീടതൽ വതലനോസതനതയമ്മ മകേൾ കേടമ്മനതട, തടതതൽ വതീടതൽ എന നമൽവതലനോസതതൽ തനോമസതച്ചുവരുന ശതീമതത അപർണ എനയനോളുലട നപരതൽ അരുവനോപ്പുലന വതനല്ലജതൽ 6107-10 നമ്പർ തണ്ടനപ്പെർപടതയുള പുരയതടതതലല അഞസ മൂടസ റബ്ബർ മരങളുലട W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -6- ശതഖരങൾ ശതീമതത കുഞ്ഞുനമനോൾ നതനോമസസ എനയനോളുലട തനോമസവതീടതനസ ഭതീഷണതയനോയത വതീടതനസ മുകേളതനലകസ ചെരതതസ നതൽക്കുനതനോയുന ടത ശതഖരങളുലട അടതയതൽ ഇലകതകസ ഹലനന സർവതീസസ വയറുകേളുന കേനോണുനതനോയുന പറയുന. ഇതസ സനബന്ധതചസ ഈ ഓഫതീസതൽ നതനന നനരതടസ നടതതയ സല പരതനശനോധനയതലുന നമൽ റതനപ്പെനോർടസ വനോസ്തവമനോലണനസ കേനോണുന. ആയതതലന അടതസനോനതതൽ പരനോതതകനോസ്പദമനോയ വസ്തു ഉടമയനോയ ശതീമതത അപർണ ലകേ.എ. യ്ക്കസ ടത വൃക്ഷ ശതഖരങൾ അടതയനതരമനോയത മുറതചസ നതീക്കുനതതനസ നനനോടതീസസ നൽകുനതതനന അല്ലനോത പക്ഷന നകേരള പഞനോയതസ രനോജസ ആകസ ലസക്ഷൻ 238 പ്രകേനോരമുള നടപടതകേൾ സന്വേതീകേരതക്കുനതതനന ലസക്രടറതലയ ചുമതലലപ്പെടുതത തതീരുമനോനതച്ചു. 8. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and clause (v) of subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act are based on a complaint made by the 5[th] respondent, who owns a residential property on the southern side of the petitioner's property, which is separated by a 5mtr. wide Panchayat road. According to the 5[th] respondent, the rubber trees standing on the southern boundary of the petitioner's property is causing severe threat to his life and property. There is an electric line on the southern boundary of the petitioner's property and the rubber trees standing on the boundary are causing severe threat to the safety of that electric line maintained by the Kerala State Electricity Board. In order to substantiate the said facts, the 5[th] respondent has placed on record Ext.R5(c) photographs, along with the W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -7- counter affidavit. The petitioner has placed on record Ext.P8 photographs of the trees standing on the southern boundary of her property, along with the reply affidavit, in order to contend that none of the trees had fallen or its branches broken. As evident from Ext.R5(c) and Ext.P8 photographs, some of the rubber trees on the southern boundary of the petitioner's property (which is few feet above the level of Panchayat road) are slanting over the residential property of the 5[th] respondent and also the electric line maintained by the Kerala State Electricity Board. 9. Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act deals with precautions in cases of dangerous trees and pruning of hedges and trees. Sub-section (1) of Section 238 deals with the powers of a Village Panchayat. As per clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 238, if any tree or any branch or portion of a tree or the fruits of any tree be deemed by the Village Panchayat to be likely to fall and thereby endanger any person or any structure or any cultivation, the Village Panchayat may, by notice, require the owner of the said tree to secure, lop or cut down the said tree or remove the fruits thereof so as to prevent any danger therefrom. As per clause (b) of sub-section (1), if immediate action is necessary, the Village Panchayat shall itself, before giving such notice or before the W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -8- period of such notice expires, secure, lop or cut down the said tree or remove the fruit thereof, fence off a part of any street or take such other temporary measures as it thinks fit to prevent danger, and the cost of so doing shall be recoverable from the owner of the tree in the same manner as an arrear of public revenue due on land. As per clause (c) of sub-section (1), if any tree or the branch thereof in the opinion of the Village Panchayat, causes pollution to the drinking water of a well or tank, the Village Panchayat may, by notice, require the owner of such tree to cut down and remove such tree or branch thereof. 10. Sub-section (2) of Section 238 of the Act deals with the power of the Secretary of a Village Panchayat. As per sub-section (2), the Secretary of a Village Panchayat may, without notice, (a) trim or prune any hedge bordering on a public street so that it may not exceed such height from the level of the adjoining roadways as may be provided for this purpose; or (b) cut and trim any hedge or tree overhanging the said trees and obstructing it or the view of traffic or causing damage to it; or (c) remove fallen trees on public roads and waterways which obstruct traffic. 11. In **Joseph V.M. v. Kadanad Grama Panchayat [2019 (3) KHC 545]** this Court held that the difference which is W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -9- discernible from the language of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is that, subsection (1) empowers the Village Panchayat to take appropriate measures when any branch or portion of a tree or the fruits of any tree is likely to fall and thereby endanger any person or any structure or any cultivation. Though clause (a) of sub-section (1) contemplates a notice by the Village Panchayat to the owner of the said tree, requiring him to secure, lop or cut down the said tree or remove the fruits thereof, so as to prevent any danger therefrom; clause (b) of sub-section (1) empowers the Village Panchayat to secure, lop or cut down the said tree or remove the fruit thereof, etc. before giving notice under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or before the period of such notice expire, if immediate action is necessary. On the other hand, sub-section (2) of Section 238 empowers the Secretary of the Village Panchayat, without notice, trim or prune any hedge bordering on a public street; cut and trim any hedge or tree overhanging the said street and obstructing it or the view of traffic or cause damage to it; or remove fallen trees on public roads and water ways which obstruct traffic. 12. In view of the provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, on receipt of a complaint under sub-section (1) of Section 238 W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -10- that any branch or portion of a tree or the fruits of any tree is likely to fall and thereby endanger any person or any structure or any cultivation, in which immediate action under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 238 is not necessary, the Village Panchayat shall issue notice requiring the owner of the said tree to secure, lop or cut down the said tree or remove the fruits thereof so as to prevent any danger therefrom, along with a copy of that complaint, giving him an opportunity to submit reply within a reasonable time, with copy to the complainant. In case such notice is issued based on the report of the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar or Village Officer, a copy of the said report shall be enclosed along with that notice. On receipt of the reply, the Village Panchayat shall conduct a personal hearing, with notice to the complainant and also the owner of the tree, if found necessary after conducting a local inspection, and pass an order recording its reasons that any branch or portion of a tree or the fruits of any tree is likely to fall and thereby endanger any person or any structure or any cultivation. A copy of that order shall be served on the complainant and also on the owner of the tree, along with the notice requiring him to secure, lop or cut down the tree or remove the fruits thereof so as to prevent any danger therefrom. W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -11- 13. In **Malu M. v. State of Kerala and others [ILR 2015 (3) Ker. 869 : 2015 (3) KLT SN 62]** , this Court held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. It would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the said decision read thus; "15. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All.E.R. 1148]** Lord Denning, M.R. Observed that, the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In **Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120]** it was observed that, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 16. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above, the Apex Court in **Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C.Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364]** held that, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -12- is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi - judicial performance. 17. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down in **Krishna Swami v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 605]** that, undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory / public authority / functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi - judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions making. It would apply W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -13- equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. What is necessary is that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority." 14. In the instant case, the reasoning of the Village Panchayat in requiring the petitioner to cut and remove the rubber trees standing on her property is not discernible from Ext.Ext.P7 notice dated 27.04.2020 issued by the 3[rd] respondent. In decision No.3(1) dated 02.03.2020, the Village Panchayat relied on the report of the Village Officer [marked as Ext.R5(b) along with the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent], without furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner. Moreover, the nature of contentions raised by the petitioner is not discernible from decision No.3(1) dated 02.03.2020 of the Village Panchayat. A copy of that decision was also not served on the petitioner, along with Ext.P7 notice requiring him to cut and remove five rubber trees standing on her property. W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -14- 15. For the aforesaid reasons Ext.P7 notice dated 27.04.2020 issued by the 3[rd] respondent and also decision No.3(1) dated 02.03.2020 of the Village Panchayat, in exercise of its powers under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, cannot be sustained in law and they are accordingly set aside and the Village Panchayat is directed to reconsider the matter, taking note of the law laid down in as above, with notice to the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent and also an authorised officer in the concerned Electrical Section of the Kerala State Electricity Board, and pass a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner and the 5[th] respondent shall appear before the Village Panchayat on **15.09.2020 at 11.00 am** , along with their written submissions. The 3[rd] respondent shall issue notice requiring an authorised officer in the concerned Electrical Section of the Kerala State Electricity Board to be present before the Village Panchayat on 15.09.2020 at 11.00 am. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr W.P.(C)No.9735 of 2020(N) -15- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2508/1994 OF SRO, KONNI.** - **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1 DATED 21.12.2017** **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE A65761/19 DATED 13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RERPESENTATION DATED 22.12.2019 OF THE PETITIONER SEND TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIA EMAIL.** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.12.2019 IN WP(C) NO.35789/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 22.1.2020 ALONG WITH WHICH EXT.P5 JUDGMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.4.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING VARIOUS ANGLES OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF 5TH RESPONDENT'S AND SON'S HOUSES.** ## **5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2019.** **EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 13.11.2019. EXHIBIT R5(C) PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INCIDENT HAPPENED ON 13.05.2020.**