Babu Joseph v. Kothamangalam Municipality and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.14427 OF 2020(C)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BABU JOSEPH AGED 54 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, VILAYIL, KAVALANGADU KARA, NELLIMATTOM P.O, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK 686 691** **NOW RESIDING AT 31 LINCON AVE, NEW HIDE PARK, NEW YORK 11040** **REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANTHOSH JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, VILAYIL, KAVALANGADU KARA, NELLIMATTOM P.O, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK 686 691.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM (PO) 686 691** - **2 THE SECRETARY, THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM (P.O) 686 691** - **3 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691** - **4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691** - **5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691** - **6 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030 R1-2 BY SRI.PEEYUS A KOTTAM, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY** W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 2 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR GP SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of August, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The case set up in the Writ Petition (civil) is as follows : _That the petitioner, a hapless NRI, who invested his entire life savings by toiling very hard in a foreign soil, for constructing a commercial building in his native place, is being harassed by the Official Machinery repeatedly and his request for Occupancy Certificate has been rejected by the impugned Ext.P20 Communication, issued in blatant violation of the directions issued in Ext.P18 Judgment. By Exts.P1 & P2 Sale Deeds, the Petitioner obtained title and possession over 15.16 Ares (37.50 Cents) of land in Sy.No.1068/1B-2 of Kothamangalam Village. The entire land within the said four boundaries inclusive of 15.16 Ares (37.5 Cents) purchased by the Petitioner is in the exclusive possession of the Petitioner and his predecessors for more than 100 years. The above land forms part of 81.75 Ares (2.02 Acres) of land in Survey No.1068/1B which was originally belonging to Sri.Paulo Elanjikkal who executed Partition Deed No.2372/1121 ME of SRO, Kothamangalam on 2nd day of Meenam, 1121 ME (15/03/1946) whereby the said 81.75 Ares was allotted to his son Sri. Joseph. While so, the State acquired a portion thereof for construction of By-pass road. After acquisition, Ext.P5 Acquisition Sketch was prepared approved the District Survey Superintendent. Subsequently, the said Sri. Joseph sold the said land & Virivu by Exts.P6 & P7 executed in 2002 to Sri. K.V.Jolly & his wife Smt. Lissy Jolly who in turn sold it in 2008 to four persons, who again sold it to the Petitioner’s immediate predecessors-in-title in 2010 from whom the Petitioner purchased it in 2011. Subsequently, the Petitioner sold 6 Cents out of 15.16 Ares and the remaining extent is 12.82 Ares. In 2009, the Petitioner’s predecessor got the land measured through Taluk Surveyor who issued Ext.P8 Sketch after measurement for applying for_ W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 4 _a building permit based on which Ext.P9 Permit was issued which was renewed by Exts.P11, & P12. Initially the Revenue Authorities interdicted the construction on a premise that the land is classified as Nilam in Revenue Records. The Petitioner had overcome that objection by obtaining a KLU Order on an application submitted before Paddy Land Amendment. Even then, a condition was imposed therein under the Amendment which was impugned in W.P.(C)No.29947/2018 which was disposed of by holding that the impugned Condition do not contemplate payment of any amount, but only reassessment and the 1st respondent was directed to consider the application for building permit pursuant to which Ext.P13 Permit was issued based on Ext.P8 Survey Sketch. The Petitioner has constructed the building perfectly in conformity with Ext.P13 Permit within the boundaries shown in Ext.P8 Survey Sketch in his registered holding of 12.82 Ares without extending the construction in any manner to the Virivu. When the construction was almost completed, the 5th respondent issued Ext.P14 to stop construction based on an alleged anonymous complaint that the Petitioner filled up the Thodu & effected construction, which is baseless. Since the construction was completed, the Petitioner submitted Ext.P16 Completion Plan evidenced by Ext.P15 Receipt, which was not acted upon within 15 days and therefore, the Occupancy Certificate is deemed to have been issued under Rule 20(3) of KMBR, 2019. The Overseer from 1st Respondent inspected the land & reported that the allegation is frivolous. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P17 Notice based on Ext.P14 refusing to issue Occupancy Certificate which was impugned in W.P.(C) No.10677/2020 which was disposed of by Ext.P18 Judgment by directing the 4th respondent to Survey the Land with reference to the Title Deeds of the Petitioner, Survey Records & the earlier Survey Sketches and to submit a Report & Sketch before the 2nd respondent who was directed to consider the application for Completion Certificate after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and after taking note of the contention of Deemed Occupancy Certificate. The 4th respondent conducted a farce measurement without referring to the Title Deeds and the Survey Sub Division Sketch and_ W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 5 _submitted Ext.P21 Report that there are disparities between Survey Plan, Acquisition Plan & Survey Sketch & when the land was measured as per Survey Plan, a small portion of the building is in Thodu Puramboke and when land was measured as per Ext.P8 Site Plan of Taluk Surveyor, the construction is entirely within the boundaries therein and the Petitioner is found in possession of 12.73 Ares including Thodu Puramboke (Petitioner has title over 12.82 Ares). On receipt of Ext. P21 Report & Ext.P22 Sketch, even without affording an opportunity of being heard & without adverting to the contention regarding “Deemed Occupancy Certificate, the 2[nd] Respondent issued the impugned Ext.P20, which is ex-facie illegal._ 2. The gist of the main contentions urged by the petitioner are ## as follows : - a. Ext.P20 was issued in blatant violation of Ext. P18 Judgment. b. Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before issuing Ext.P20 c. Petitioner’s contention of Deemed Occupancy was not adverted to as directed. - d. The Survey by the 4th Respondent was a farce & not in tune with the direction of this Court. - e. The Title Deeds were not looked into as directed. f. The 5th Respondent relied on her own erroneous Ext.P13 Survey Sketch which showed the extent of the Petitioner’s registered holding as 12.95 Ares (32.00 cents) instead of 15.16 Ares (37.50 Cents) obtained as per Exts. P1 & P2 Sale Deeds. g. As per Ext.P21 Report, there are disparities between Survey Sketch, Acquisition Sketch, Site Plan, Measurement Sketch all prepared by Government Officials. No citizen shall suffer on account of mistake, if any, committed by the officals. h. Even as per Ext.P21 Report, construction is within the boundaries of Ext.P8 Survey Sketch. i. As per Rule 20(3) of the KMBR, 2019, the Secretary is bound to W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 6 issue Occupancy Certificate, if the construction is in conformity with the Permit. There is no allegation that the construction is not in conformity with permit. j. The title, if any, of the Government over any portion of land adjoining the Petitioner’s registered holding has been lost by adverse possession & limitation as it is being possessed by the Petitioner & his predecessors in title for more than 100 years peacefully, openly, as of right, uninterruptedly & adverse to the title of the owner. ## 3. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) with the following prayers : _i) “Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P20 Communication and by quashing the Original of Exhibit P20 Communication as illegal and opposed to law._ _ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to forthwith issue Occupancy Certificate pursuant to the submission of Ext.P16 Partial Completion Plan evidenced by Exhibit P15 Receipt._ _iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P14 Notice and by quashing the Original of Exhibit P14 notice as illegal and opposed to law. iv) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring that the construction made by the Petitioner is perfectly in accordance with Ext. P12 Permit and the approved plan._ _v) Issue such other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions as this Hon’ble Court may be deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case.”_ 4. Heard Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparambil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Peeyus A Kottam, learned Standing Counsel for the Kothamangalam Municipality appearing for R1 and R2 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 to 6. 5. The case of the petitioner is that even before he has purchased the subject property, the sketch of the subject property after W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 7 the land acquisition proceedings has been prepared by the survey authorities and approved by none other than the District Survey Superintendent, Ernakulam as per Ext.P5 prepared in the year 2000. Thereafter, Ext.P8 sketch was also prepared and approved by the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor on 4.4.2009 presumably, on account of the proposed need of the predecessor for pursuing a building permit application. It is long thereafter that the petitioner has purchased the subject properties as per Ext.P1 registered sale deed dated 7.2.2011 of SRO, Kothamangalam and Ext.P2 registered sale deed dated 10.2.2011 of SRO, Kothamangalam from the said predecessor. 6. Further, it also appears that the petitioner had sold an extent of 2.42 ares (5.97 cents) to a third party from out of the total extent of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 after the petitioner had obtained Ext.P9 building permit and its renewal. It is after the issuance of Ext.P5 sketch prepared by the District Survey Superintendent in the year 2000 and Ext.P8 sketch prepared by the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor on 4.4.2009 that the petitioner's predecessor had later made application dated 27.10.2009 (referred to in Ext.P9) for grant of building permit for constructing a commercial building in the said property on 27.10.2009 to the 2[nd] respondent-Secretary of the Kothmangalam Municipality. Along with the said building permit application, B.A.No.265/09-10 dated 27.10.2009, the petitioner's predecessor had also submitted other W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 8 documents including Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009 prepared by the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor as the site plan accompanying the said building permit application. After processing and examining the papers, the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary has issued building permit dated 6.11.2009(referred in Ext.P9)for 3 years to the predecessor in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 framed under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. 7. Later, the petitioner had purchased the property from the predecessor along with the right of the building permit, as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 7.2.2011 and Ext.P2 sale deed dated 10.2.2011 of SRO, Kothamangalam. The fact that the petitioner has purchased those properties along with the said building permit dated 6.11.2009 is clearly stated in page 4 of Ext.P1 deed and page 6 of Ext.P2 deed. Later the said building permit has been transferred by the respondent Municipality in the name of the petitioner as per Ext.P9 dated 13.1.2012, but with the earlier validity period of 3 years from 6.11.2009. The said building permit as per Ext.P9 has been renewed as per Ext.P10 dated 5.9.2012, Ext.P11 dated 28.11.2015 and Ext.P12 dated 31.10.2018 by the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner has thereafter completed the construction and has submitted Ext.P16 completion plan dated 2.3.2020 to the 2[nd] respondent for grant of occupancy certificate and for grant of building number to the said construction. The fact that Ext.P16 application dated W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 9 2.3.2020 has been received by the 2[nd] respondent on 2.3.2020 itself is evident from Ext.P15 receipt dated 2.3.2020 issued by the office of the 2[nd] respondent. In the meanwhile, it appears that the 5[th] respondentVillage Officer has issued Ext.P14 notice dated 29.1.2020 to the petitioner instructing him to stop the construction as complaints have been received that the petitioner has allegedly encroached into the puramboke area. A copy of Ext.P14 was also send by the 5[th] respondentVillage Officer to the 2[nd] respondent-Kothamangalam Municipality. Thereafter, it appears that the 2[nd] respondent has directed the Municipal Overseer to conduct enquiry and give report regarding the matters in Ext.P14 notice, pursuant to which the Municipal Overseer has given report dated 13.5.2020 (referred to as item No.2 in Ext.P17). 8. A reading of Ext.P17 dated 26.5.2020 would broadly indicate that the 2[nd] respondent has stated therein that the report of the Municipal overseer given on 13.5.2020 referred to as item No.1 in Ext.P17 would indicate that the petitioner has not made any unauthorized construction. However, it is stated therein that since Ext.P14 notice has been issued by the 5[th] respondent-Village officer, further steps in that regard will have to be awaited, presumably from the end of the revenue authorities concerned. Since the application of the petitioner for occupancy certificate and grant of building number made out as per Ext.P16 dated 2.3.2020 was not being acted upon even long W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 10 after the expiry of the 15 days outer time limit mandated in Rule 22 of the Kerala Municipal Buidling Rules, 1999, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No.10677/2020. Petitioner had mainly raised the contention in the said writ proceedings that indisputably, he has secured the benefit of deemed occupancy certificate in view of the mandate contained in the proviso to Rule 22 (3) of the KMBR Rules, 1999 inasmuch as no communication refusing the request in Ext.P16 has been issued by the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner at any time before the expiry of the said 15 days time limit and further that the said time limit of 15 days from the submission of Ext.P16 had expired on 17.3.2020, as evident from Ext.P15 receipt. Further that, the said expiry of the said 15 days time limit on 17.3.2020 is before the lock down that was imposed in the country on 24.3.2020. 9. The respondent-Municipality had taken up the contention that in view of the objections raised by the 5[th] respondent-Village Officer as per Ext.P14 notice, the matters in relation thereto will have to be finalized. This Court without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, had disposed of W.P.(C.) No. 10677/2020 as per Ext.P18 judgment rendered on 3.6.2020. Without prejudice to the contention of the petitioner regarding his entitlement for securing the deemed occupancy certificate, the respondent-Taluk Surveyor was directed to conduct a survey and measurement of the subject property on the basis W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 11 of title deeds of the petitioner and other relevant documents like Ext.P8 herein, Ext.P13 herein etc. with due prior notice to the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary to ascertain and report as to whether the petitioner has actually encroached into any puramboke/thodu puramboke land and also as to whether the petitioner had made the abovesaid construction in the said encroached area and the copy of the sketch and the survey report clearly showing the encroached area, if any should be furnished immediately by the respondent-Taluk Surveyor to the respondent-Municipal Secretary as well as to the petitioner etc. 10. It was also ordered in Ext.P18 that thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent- Municipal Secretary will take up for consideration the matters raised by the petitioner in the application submitted by him on 2.3.2020 (Ext.P16 herein) for grant of occupancy certificate and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, should pass orders duly taking note of the said contention of the petitioner regarding his entitlement for grant of deemed occupancy certificate and also to take into account the abovesaid report of the Taluk Surveyor etc. 11. Thereafter, the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor has conducted the survey and measurement and has given Ext.P21 report dated 25.6.2020 to the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary stating that there are divergences between Ext.P5 sketch and the old survey sketch and that Ext.P5 sketch may have been prepared by even reckoning W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 12 puramboke thodu area as part of the property of the party concerned etc. However, it is clearly stated in Ext.P21 that the construction made by the petitioner is within the limits of the property as made out in Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009. Further that, Ext.P8 sketch is in divergence from Ext.P5 land acquisition sketch and the old survey plan. However, it is also stated in Ext.P21 that after survey and measurement it is seen that the total extent of the land in the possession of the petitioner appears to be 12.73 ares. Further that, the said 12.73 ares is also comprising of a part of the thodu puramboke etc. Pursuant to Exts.P21 and P22 survey report and sketch, the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary has issued the impugned Ext.P20 proceedings dated 2.7.2020 without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and ordering that the plea of the petitioner for grant of occupancy certificate will stand rejected in view of Ext.P21 report as it is _interalia_ reported that the petitioner has allegedly encroached into the thodu puramboke which is vested with the respondent-Municipality and the construction is also made into the encroached puramboke area. It is this order in Ext.P21 that is under challenge in the above writ petition. 12. On a specific query as to whether the 2[nd] respondent has afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner after the submission of Ext.P21 report and before the rendering of Ext.P20 rejection order issued by the 2[nd] respondent, Sri.Peeyus A Kottam, W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 13 learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Kothamangalam Municipality would fairly and candidly state that he is instructed to submit that the 2[nd] respondent has not afforded any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, prior to the rendering of the impugned Ext.P20 rejection order, even though this Court had specifically directed the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary to hear the petitioner before any such order is passed in the matter after the submission of the survey sketch and report. Therefore, on the sole ground of blatant violation of principles of natural justice and fairness, the impugned Ext.P20 rejection order is liable to be interdicted. 13. Now, the next issue is as to the contention of the petitioner based on his entitlement for securing deemed occupancy certificate. Though, this Court had specifically directed in Ext.P18 judgment that the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary should specifically consider the said contention of the petitioner regarding his entitlement for deemed grant of occupancy certificate as a first aspect, no consideration in that regard is made in the impugned order. It is beyond any dispute that Ext.P16 completion plan for grant of occupancy certificate and building number was submitted by the petitioner as early as on 2.3.2020 to the 2[nd] respondent as is acknowledged in Ext.P15 receipt dated 2.3.2020 issued by the office of the 2[nd] respondent and 15 days therefrom has expired on 17.3.2020. Rule 22 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules,1999 reads W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 14 ## as follows : _**22. “Completion certificate, development certificated and occupancy certificate.-** (1) Every owner shall, on completion of the development redevelopment of land or construction or reconstruction or addition or alteration of building, as per the permit issued to him, submit a completion certificate certified and signed by him, to the Secretary in the form in Appendix E:_ _Provided that in the case of buildings, other than single residential units up to two floors with total floor area not exceeding 150 sq. meters, the completion certificate shall be certified and signed by the owner and registered architect or engineer or supervisor also as in Appendix F._ _(2) The Secretary shall, on receipt of the completion certificate and on being satisfied that the development or redevelopment of land has been effected in conformity with the permit given, issue a development certificate in the form in Appendix G, not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of the completion certificate: Provided that if no such development certificate is received within the said fifteen days, the owner may proceed as if such a development certificate has been duly issued to him._ _(3) The Secretary shall, on receipt of the completion certificate and on being satisfied that the construction or reconstruction or addition or alteration has been carried out in conformity with the permit given, issue occupancy certificate in the form in Appendix H [not later than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the completion certificate:] Provided that, in case there is deficiency as per the provisions of these Rules, in minimum width of mandatory open space/yard after completion of the construction, other than the distance stipulated as per Sec.383A of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and rule 117 of these Rules, the secretary may allow a tolerance upto 5% of the minimum mandatory open space/yard to be provided as per these Rules or twenty five centimeters, whichever is less, for the building constructed: Provided that if no such occupancy certificate is issued within the said fifteen days, the owner may proceed as if such occupancy certificate has been duly issued to him._ _(4) The owner of a building may if he intends to occupy the building before its completion, apply to the Secretary for that purpose and the Secretary shall, on being satisfied that such occupancy will not endanger life issue occupancy certificate in respect of the completed part.”_ 14. The respondents 1 and 2 have no case whatsoever that they have issued any communication to the petitioner intimating either the rejection of the request in Ext.P16 application or the deferment of the consideration of the request in Ext.P16 for any valid reason before the expiry of the said outer limit of 15 days on 17.3.2020. W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 15 15. However, in that regard, Sri.Peeyus A Kottam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Kothamangalam Municipality appearing for R1 and R2 would strongly urge that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that even before the submission of Ext.P16 application dated 2.3.2020, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P14 notice dated 29.1.2020 issued by the 5[th] respondent-Village officer instructing him to stop the construction work in view of the allegations that he has encroached into thodu puramboke as complaints have been received regarding his alleged encroachment into thodu puamboke etc. and that therefore, the issuance of Ext.P14 by the 5[th] respondent, even before the submission of Ext.P16 dated 2.3.2020 would clearly lead to the situation that the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary was handicapped to take any decision on Ext.P16 completion plan. But, the fact of the matter is that the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary does not have any case whatsoever that they have issued any communication to the petitioner, after the submission of Ext.P16 completion plan dated 2.3.2020 that their request for occupancy certificate will stand deferred until finalisation of the matters in Ext.P14. 16. On the other hand, the conduct of respondents 1 and 2 suggests otherwise. It is indisputable that a copy of Ext.P14 notice dated 29.1.2020 was also served by the 5[th] respondent to the 2[nd] respondent – Municipal Secretary. Further a reading of Ext.P17 would indicate that W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 16 thereafter the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary has directed the Municipal Overseer to conduct an enquiry in the matter, which resulted in a report dated 13.5.2020 submitted by the said overseer and it is stated in Ext.P17 (item No.2) dated 26.5.2020 by none other than the 2[nd] respondent that a reading of the said report of the Municipal Overseer given on 13.5.2020 would broadly indicate that his enquiry/inspection has revealed that the petitioner has not made any unauthorized construction as alleged in Ext.P14. 17. In view of the abovesaid aspects, it has been held that even the 2[nd] respondent was then _prima facie_ convinced, going by his own admission and conduct and that too, on the basis of the enquiry and inspection conducted by the Municipal Overseer that _prima facie_ allegations raised against the petitioner may not have much force. True that, in Ext.P17 it is further stated that therefore, the request of the petitioner in Ext.P16 will stand deferred till the finalization of the matter in Ext.P14. But the crucial aspect of the matter is that Ext.P17 is issued as late as on 26.5.2020 to the petitioner. The first communication issued by the 2[nd] respondent to the petitioner after the submission of Ext.P16 on 2.3.2020 is the one as per Ext.P17 dated 26.5.2020, which is much after the expiry of the 15 days time limit from the submission of Ext.P16, which has occurred on 17.3.2020. 18. Therefore, in the facts of this case, there cannot be any W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 17 dispute that the 2[nd] respondent has not issued any communication to the petitioner at any point of time, after the submission of Ext.P16 application dated 2.3.2020 and before the expiry of the 15 days time limit therefrom on 17.3.2020 that either the request of the petitioner for occupancy certificate will stand rejected or the same will stand deferred in view of Ext.P14. The mere communication as per Ext.P14 issued by the 5[th] respondent-Village Officer, who is not part of the Municipal administration, cannot be taken as a decision or communication taken by the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary, as required in Rule 22 of the KMBR, 1999 so as to get over the mandate regarding the deemed occupancy certificate. 19. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in _**Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayat**_ [2016 (2) KLT 175] in para No.9 thereof as follows : _**9.** “To answer the question referred by the learned Single Judge, it is enough that a reference is made to Section 236 (1), (3) and 11 which read as under:_ _236: General provisions regarding licences and permissions (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in, or may be prescribed under this Act, every application for any licence or permission under this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder, or for the renewal thereof, shall be made not less than thirty and not more than ninety days before the earliest date with effect from which, or the commencement of the period being three year or such lesser period as is mentioned in the application for which the licence or permission is required." "(3) Save as aforesaid, if orders on an application for any such licence or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as may be prescribed in any class of cases after the receipt of the application by the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period, if any, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed and subject to the law, rules and bye-laws and all conditions ordinarily imposed." "(11) When_ W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 18 _any licence or permission is suspended or revoked or when the period for which it was granted, or within which application for renewal should be made, has expired, whichever expires later, the grantee shall for all purposes of this Act or any rule made under it be deemed to be without a licence or permission until the order suspending or revoking the licence or permission is cancelled or, subject to subsections (3) and (4), until the licence or permission is renewed, as the case may be._ _On a bare reading of sub section (3), we do not find any ambiguity in the said provision. The section itself clearly indicates that if orders on any such application or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as may be prescribed in any class of cases, after the receipt of the application by the Secretary, “the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period, if any, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed and subject to the law, rules and bye-laws and all conditions ordinarily imposed”. The aforesaid words in the statute clearly indicates that a deemed licence comes into existence if orders in an application for licence or permission is not communicated to the applicant within thirty days. An application for renewal of a licence is akin to an application for licence as well. "_ 20. So also, it has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the ## case in _**Abdul Kharim v. Pazhayakunummel Grama**_ ## _**Panchayath**_ [2018 (4) KLT 1086 (FB)] in para Nos 6 and 11 thereof as follows : _“6. We find the Division Bench, in the factual circumstances of that case, was right in regard to the interpretation of relevant provisions regarding deemed licence in as much as that the Panchayath did not issue any communication to the applicant within 30 days in regard to the application for the licence. We find at the same time the Division Bench erred in approving the dictum in Rajesh Ramachandran's case for the reasons stated hereafter._ _11. There are two elements that would require to be established by an applicant to entitle him for a 'deemed licence'. One is lodging an application in accordance with the statutory provision and other is the expiry of the time for consideration of such an application by the authority. The very purpose of fixing an outer limit for consideration of the application is to find out the validity of application and also to consider whether the applicant is entitled for permit or licence. The point that arises for consideration is, when an application is found to be defective within the outer limit stipulated for considering such application, can that application be considered as an 'application as stipulated under S.236(3) of the Act?”_ 21. The abovesaid dictum regarding entitlement for deemed occupancy certificate, deemed licence etc. as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, Kerala Panchayat Raj Act etc. has been followed W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 19 by this Court in a series of cases as in _**Hamza Haji S.K. v.Payyannur Municipality and others**_ [2018 (3) KLT 620 = 2018 (4) KHC 30] etc. and judgment dated 9.6.2020 in W.P.(C.) No.10569/2020 etc. Therefore, going by the statutory mandate contained in the proviso to Rule 22(3) of the KMBR, 1999 , it is only to be held that the petitioner has secured the benefit of deemed occupancy certificate in the facts and circumstances of this case. 22 **.** However, it is to be noted that Sec.492 (9) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 confers power on a Municipality to suspend or cancel the grant of permission, for valid grounds. Therefore, such a deemed permission of occupancy could be the subject matter of cancellation or revocation, if there are cogent grounds. So the merits of the petitioner's entitlement for occupancy will have to be considered in this case. 23. The abovesaid aspect regarding entitlement for the benefit of the deemed occupancy certificate is only one based on the technicality of the law contained in the proviso to Rule 22(3) of the KMBR, 1999. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is proposing to enter into the issue as to whether the petitioner is even otherwise lawfully entitled for the grant of occupancy certificate in the facts and circumstances of this case, going by the mandate contained in the proviso to Rule 22(3) of the KMBR, 1999. W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 20 24. Going by the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner has purchased the subject property long after the issuance of Ext.P5 sketch prepared and approved in the year 2000 by the District Survey Superintendent and the issuance of Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009 prepared by none other than the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor. It is after the issuance of Exts.P5 and P8 sketches that the petitioner has purchased the subject property from the predecessor. It is thereafter that the petitioner's predecessor had submitted the application for grant of building permit on 27.10.2009 which resulted in the issuance of Ext.P10 building permit. Along with the said application dated 27.10.2009 for grant of building permit, the predecessor has submitted Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009 issued by the 4[th] respondent –Taluk Surveyor as the site plan of the proposed construction along with the application for building permit. It is on the basis of the documents attached along with the said application dated 27.10.2009 as well as Ext.P8 sketch issued and approved by the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor etc. that the 2[nd] respondent has granted building permit in favour of the predecessor, which was later transferred to the petitioner as per Ext.P9 dated 13.1.2012 which has been subsequently renewed as per Exts.P10, P11 and P12. 25. The petitioner has duly completed the construction in pursuance of the said building permit which has been issued on the basis W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 21 of Ext.P8 survey sketch prepared by the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor. Now, the findings of the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor in Ext.P21 is that there are discrepancies between Ext.P5 LA sketch and the old survey sketch. Consequently, the 4[th] respondent would also proceed to take the view that Ext.P8 sketch is also to be find fault with. It is on the basis of this assumption made by the 4[th] respondent that it is stated in Ext.P20 that the petitioner is in occupation of encroached puramboke area and that a part of the construction is in a part of such encroached area etc. Though, this Court has specifically directed the 4[th] respondent as per Ext.P18 judgment to precisely give the details regarding such encroached area, no such mention is made by the 4[th] respondent in Ext.P21. That aspect of the matter need not detain the consideration of this Court any further for the simple fact that 4[th] respondent would state in internal page 2 of Ext.P21 that the construction now actually made by the petitioner is within the limits of the property shown as per Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009 and that it is on the basis of Ext.P8 sketch that the Municipality had granted the building permit. Further, it is also stated in the last paragraph of page 2 of Ext.P21 that the petitioner is found to be actually in possession of 12.73 ares of property, which according to the 4[th] respondent is also inclusive of the alleged encroached area. However, the 4[th] respondent would clearly state that the property in the actual possession of the petitioner after survey and measurement found to be W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 22 12.73 ares. The total extent of the property shown in Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009 is 15.17 ares. There is no dispute on both sides that later the petitioner had sold an extent of 2.42 ares (5.97 cents) from the said property. Hence, going by Ext.P8, the total extent of the property should be 15.17 ares minus 2.42 ares after the subsequent sale, which comes to 12.75 ares. It is stated by the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor in page No.2 of Ext.P21 that the petitioner is in possession of 12.73 ares. 26. Though, it may not be very relevant to decide the present issue, the petitioner’s counsel has pointed out that the revenue officials have accepted the basic land tax from the petitioner and has also issued possession certificate to him for the subject property for an extent of 12.82 ares as can be seen from Ext.P3 land tax receipt, Ext.P4 possession certificate etc. 27. However, the fact of the matter is that even going by the version of the 4[th] respondent, petitioner’s construction has been made fully in compliance with the limits of the property as per Ext.P8 sketch and the possession actually found is also broadly found to be in tune with Ext.P8 sketch. 28. The sheet anchor of the case of the 4[th] respondent is that Ext. P5 LA sketch issued in the year 2000 was in divergence from the old survey sketch and presumably implying thereby that Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009 may have been prepared by the 4[th] respondent on the basis of W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 23 Ext.P5 sketch approved by the District Survey Superintendent in the year 2000. The details of the old survey sketch is not even remotely adverted to by the 4[th] respondent anywhere in the said report. The indisputable fact of the matter is that one of the higher functionaries in the Survey Department namely the District Survey Superintendent has approved Ext.P5 sketch as early as in the year 2000. There is no case for the respondents that Ext.P8 survey sketch dated 4.4.2009 issued by the 4[th] respondent is in any manner in divergence with Ext.P5 LA sketch or that any fraud has been committed in the issuance of Ext.P8 sketch or that the petitioner has in any manner colluded for such any alleged fraud etc. On the other hand, it is indisputable that the petitioner purchased the subject property from a third party much after the issuance of Ext.P5 sketch issued in the year 2000 and Ext.P8 issued on 4.4.2009. It is on the basis of Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009 that the 2[nd] respondent has granted building permit referred to in Ext.P9 which has been later transferred, renewed and extended as per Exts.P9, P10, P11 and P12. 29. Rule 22 (3) of the KMBR, 1999 mandates that if the construction has been made in consonance with the building permit given to the party, then necessarily occupancy certificate will have to be issued in favour of the party. It is beyond any doubt that Ext.P9 building permit has been issued on the basis of Ext.P8 sketch and the approved plan. There is no case for respondents 1 and 2 that the construction has W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 24 been made by the petitioner in divergence from the abovesaid building permit or the approved plan. In the impugned Ext.P20 rejection order, the 2[nd] respondent has no case that the impugned construction has been made either in violation of the building permit, or in violation of the approved plan or in violation of Ext.P8 sketch on the basis of which Ext.P9 permit was given. 30. It has been held by this Court in decisions as in _**George Joseph and anr. V. Pala Municipality and others**_ [2015 (2) KHC 431 = 2015 (2) KLT 551] that a person can be penalized if he deviates from the work commenced in the statutory terms, only if the deviation has been occasioned, out of his voluntary acts, but not owing to his supervening event, which he could neither foresee nor prevent, more pertinently if the supervening act in itself is not tainted with any illegality. In that case, it was held by this Court that the State has exercised its right of eminent domain, perfectly legally and the beneficiary is the Municipality which now shows an accusing finger towards the unwary citizen and that an act of the State cannot make a citizen suffer the adverse consequences, if the said citizen has not contributed anything to add to his plight. It was held that since the petitioners had constructed strictly in compliance with the sanctioned plan, which never stood altered, notwithstanding subsequent changes, essentially brought about at the behest of the respondent-Municipality, W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 25 it cannot refuse to regularize the said construction etc. It will be pertinent to refer to para Nos. 26 and 28 of the judgments of this Court in _**George Joseph’s**_ case (supra) [2015 (2) KHC 431] which reads as follows : _**26.** “A person can be penalised if he deviates from the work commenced in statutory terms, only if the deviation has been occasioned out of his voluntary act, but not owing a supervening event, which he could neither foresee nor prevent; more pertinently, if the supervening act in itself is not tainted with any illegality. The State has exercised its right of eminent domain, perfectly legally, and the beneficiary is the Municipality, which now shows an accusing finger toward an unwary citizen. An act of State cannot make a citizen suffer adverse consequences, if the said citizen has not contributed anything to add to his plight._ _28. Under these circumstances, since the petitioners have constructed strictly in compliance with the sanctioned plan which never stood altered, notwithstanding the subsequent changes, essentially brought about at the behest of the respondent Municipality, it cannot, in my considered view, refuse to regularize the construction. I may not be wrong in observing that Rule 143 of the Rules creates a legal fiction that the construction raised under the circumstances enumerated therein is legal and it does not call for any regularisation, either_ .” 31. This Court in _**George Joseph’s**_ case (supra) [2015 (2) KHC 431] has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in _**M/s.Heera Construction(Pvt.) LTD v. Corporation of Thiruvananathapuram and anr.**_ [2008 (3) KHC 422] = 2008 (3) KLT 553] etc. In _**Heera Construction’s**_ case (supra) [2008 (3) KHC 422], this Court has dealt with a case, where the building permit has been granted by the special committee, which did not have the proper forum and building was thereafter constructed and huge investment has been made. In this context, this Court held that it is not open to the Municipal body to contend that the building permit was irregularly issued and that the Municipal authorities are estopped in that regard. W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 26 This Court also dealt with the issues relating to the defect in the constitution of special committee and that it was held that the citizen is entitled to presume that the internal management of the Corporation has been regular and is being carried down in accordance with the Act, Rules and the by-laws of the statutory body. It will be pertinent to refer to para No.12 of the judgment of this Court in _**M/s.Heera Construction’s**_ case (supra) which reads as follows : _“12. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. A the outset I should state that the reasons stated in Ext.P21, except the vague allegation of violation of Rules, are not attributable to the petitioner. A reading of Ext.P21order shows that the Secretary who is the Convener of the Special Committee was absent in the meeting which decided to grant building permit and it is on that basis it is contended that the committee did not have the quorum. Defect in the constitution of the Special Committee which decided to grant the building permit cannot be a ground for the Corporation to raise a plea that the decision of the Special Committee is invalid for that reason. A citizen is entitled to presume that the internal management of the Corporation has been regular and is being carried on in accordance with the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Corporation. Persons who bona fide deal with the Corporation in the manner authorised by the Act are not affected by any irregularity in the internal management of the Corporation of which they have no notice. In my view the object of section 531 of the Kerala Municipality Act, is to extend such protection to those who deal with the Corporation, although this protection does not extend to the members of the Committee as such. In other words, the members of the Committee or the Corporation cannot avoid a decision taken by the Committee on the ground that the Committee was irregularly constituted or that it did not have quorum. In this case, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was not dealing with the Corporation in a bona fide manner. Therefore, I cannot accept the contention of the Corporation that the decision taken by the Special Committee to grant building permit, is invalid.”_ 32. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid dictum laid down by this Court in the aforecited judgments in _**George Joseph’s**_ case (supra) [2015 (2) KHC 431], _**M/s.Heera Construction’s**_ case (supra) [2008 (3) KHC 422] etc. would be broadly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 27 The petitioner has purchased the property long after the issuance of Exts.P5 and P8 sketches, the first of which was prepared and finalized by none other than the District Survey Superintendent, who is the head of the Survey department in the District and latter of which has been prepared by none other than the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor. If the District Survey Superintendent has committed any alleged mistake in approving Ext.P5 sketch issued as early as in 2000 and consequently any mistake has also crept in Ext.P8 sketch issued on 4.4.2009, the petitioner cannot be blamed or penalized for such alleged mistakes, if any committed by any of the Governmental officers concerned. Nobody can have a case that the petitioner has even remotely played any act of collusion etc. in that regard for the simple reason that the petitioner came to the scene by purchasing the property from a third party long after the issuance of Exts.P5 and P8. Therefore, it may not be right and proper to say that the petitioner cannot place any reliance on Ext.P8 sketch on account of the view taken by the 4[th] respondent at this point of time, that Ext.P5 sketch approved by the District Survey Superintendent is in divergence with the old survey sketch and that therefore, Ext.P8 sketch issued by none other than the 4[th] respondent on 4.4.2009 is also to be found fault with. What exactly are the details of the old survey sketch is not even remotely mentioned in Ext.P21 sketch. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 28 that the grounds cited in Ext.P20 cannot be legal basis for rejecting the plea of the petitioner for occupancy certificate in terms of the Rule 22(3) of the KMBR, 1999 and to hold otherwise, would amount to prejudicing the petitioner for alleged mistakes said to have been committed by the Governmental officials on whom he had no control and in respect of the documents which has been issued by them long before the petitioner had come to the scene by purchasing the property. 33. Sri.Peeyus A Kottam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Kothamangalam Municipality would submit that it is learnt that the 2[nd ] respondent has not examined the other issues as to whether the construction has been made in terms of the building permit and the approved plan. Of course, if that is the stand of the 2[nd] respondent, certainly in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction, this Court should give opportunity to the 2[nd] respondent to examine such limited issues. However, the conclusive finding made by the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor in Ext.P21 is that the impugned construction has been made within the limits of the property as shown in Ext.P8 sketch prepared and approved by the 4[th] respondent-Taluk Surveyor. Therefore, the other findings made by the 4[th] respondent in Ext.P21 that Ext.P5 LA sketch issued in the year 2000 are in divergence from the old survey sketch and that therefore, Ext.P8 is also been faulted with etc. are not relevant and germane for deciding the issue relating to the W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 29 entitlement of the petitioner for grant of occupancy certificate in view of the statutory mandate contained in the operative portion of the Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the KMBR, 1999 for the aforementioned reasons. 34. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 2[nd] respondent-Secretary of the Municipality may conduct an inspection through the Municipal Engineer concerned with due prior notice to the petitioner to determine the limited issue as to whether the construction completed as stated in Ext.P16 is in consonance with the building permit issued to the petitioner as envisaged in the operative portion of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 and such inspection should be conducted with due prior notice to the petitioner and copy of the inspection should be given to the petitioner in advance and thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and then should a considered decision should be taken on the plea of the petitioner for grant of occupancy certificate by determining as to whether the construction completed in terms of Ext.P16 is in consonance with the building permit as envisaged in the operative portion of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 22 of the KMBR, 1999, without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 35. It is made clear that the grounds cited by the 2[nd] respondent in the Ext.P20 order dated 2.7.2020 cannot be the basis for rejecting the W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 30 plea of the petitioner for grant of building permit. Orders afresh should be passed by R2. Taking note of the factual aspect reported in Ext.P21 that the petitioner has completed the construction within the limits of the property in terms of Ext.P8 sketch dated 4.4.2009, which is the basis for the grant of the building permit and the aspects whether the construction has been in accordance with the building permit. However, it is made clear that the abovesaid observations and findings made by this Court regarding Ext.P21 report has been rendered in the context of the issue raised in this case as to the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of occupancy certificate in terms of the operative portion of the Rule 22(3) of the KMBR, 1999 and all other issues in that regard are left open. 36. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P14 memo dated 29.1.2020 directing the petitioner to stop the construction and the impugned Ext.P20 rejection order dated 2.7.2020 issued by the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary will stand quashed. Ext.P16 application dated 2.3.2020 submitted by the petitioner for grant of occupancy certificate will stand remitted to the 2[nd] respondent-Municipal Secretary for consideration and decision for the limited point as to whether the petitioner has made completed the construction pursuance to Ext.P9 building permit in consonance with the said building permit and the approved plan. W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 31 With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** **SKS** W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 32 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO./787/2011 DATED 07-02-2011 OF SRO KOTHAMANGALAM** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 881/11/1 DATED 10-02-2011 OF SRO, KOTHAMANGALAM** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 28-05-2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 02-08-2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDEWNT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACUISITION SKETCH OF THE LAND IN SURVEY NO. 1068/1 APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2334/1/02 DATED 13/06/2002 OF SRO KOTHAMANGALAM** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2335/1/02 DATED 14-06-2002 OF SRO, KOTHAMANGALAM** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN DATED 04-042009 PREPARED BY THE THALUK SURVEYOR, KOTHAMANGALAM AFTER MEASUREMENT** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO. 265/09-10 DATED 13-01-2012 ISSUED BY THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 05-09-2012 ISSUED BY THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 2811-2015 OF THE SECRETARY, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY** - **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. PW2 BA(16031)/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH DATED 29/1/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4THR ESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/1/2020** W.P.(C.) No. 14427 of 2020 33 **ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 02-032020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26-052020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-062020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C0 NO. 10677/2020 EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 2306-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-07-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25-062020 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P23 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION FROM FOUR BOUNDRIES OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND**