BPCL Kochi Refinery Officers Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd v Thripunithura Municipality and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945** # **WP(C) NO. 22766 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER:** BPCL KOCHI REFINERY OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD NO. E-1190,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SRI.ARJUN SANTHOSH SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY THRIPUNITHURA- 682 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 2 THE SECRETARY THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA- 682 301 - 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI- 682 001 - 4 DR. KUNAL VISWAM NADEPPALLY HOUSE, THRIPUNITHURA- 682 301 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY SHRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SC, TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.HANIL KUMAR SMT.M.SANTHY SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :2: ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The members of the society are the officers of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL – Kochi Refinery). The society decided to construct and provide houses to its members and purchased 138 cents of land situated in a residential zone, in the year 2012. It is stated that 42 cents of the aforesaid property is 'purayidom' and the remaining 96 cents was reclaimed 5 years prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the 'Wetland Act', for short) by the previous owners. Ext. P2 certificate of the Village Officer and Ext. P3 extract of the Data Bank would show that the land was converted prior to the year 2008. When the petitioner approached the Municipality for building permit, the petitioner was required to obtain permission under the Wetland Act. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3033/2013 and this Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, directed W.P.(C) 22766/2016 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the Municipality to consider the application for building permit, in accordance with the law and in terms of the decision of this Court in **Mohammed Abdul Basheer** _**v**_ **. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 86]** . Accordingly, the Municipality issued Ext.P6 building permit for construction of a multi-storied residential complex having 84 residential flats in 14 floors as against the petitioner's application to construct 120 flats in 20 floors. 2. When the petitioner started construction in accordance with Ext.P6 building permit, the 4[th] respondent and other local residents approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.10547/2014 contending that the land is paddy field. No interim order was granted in the said writ petition staying the construction and the petitioner proceeded with the construction as per Ext.P6 building permit. When the police interfered with the construction, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.11294/2014 and this Court, by interim order dated 29.04.2014, recorded the submission of the police that they W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :4: are not intending to interfere with the construction activities. Meanwhile, the Government increased the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 2 to 4 and the petitioner, in order to cater to the requirements of its members, submitted an application for revised building permit before the Municipality to construct 105 apartments in 20 floors with FAR less than 3. Since the said application was not considered by the Municipality, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.25429/2014. The above 3 writ petitions were disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment. The petitioner contends that, in Ext.P10, this Court held that the property will not fall within the definition of paddy or wetland as defined under the Wetland Act. This Court further held that there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the 4[th] respondent and others and in case they have a case that the property in which the construction is going on is to be treated as paddy land, their remedy is to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC). The Municipality was directed to consider the application of the petitioner for W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :5: revised building permit. The petitioner has obtained necessary permission from the Pollution Control Board, the Senior Town Planner and the Department of Fire for construction of the apartments as per the revised application. The 4[th] respondent did not approach the LLMC on the basis of the observation in Ext. P10. However, while the application for revised building permit was pending consideration before the Municipality, the 3[rd] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued Ext.P15 notice based on a complaint of the 4[th] respondent stating that the construction carried out by the petitioner is causing nuisance to the neighbours and that the construction is being carried out in paddy land. The petitioner resisted the complaint stating that in the light of Ext.P10 judgment, the issues raised in the complaint of the 4[th] respondent cannot be re-agitated before the 3[rd] respondent. However, the 3[rd] respondent, by Ext.P17 order, held that the property covered by Exts.P2 and P3 is classified as paddy land in BTR and converted land in the Data Bank and will W.P.(C) 22766/2016 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** come within the purview of the Wetland Act and Ext.P6 building permit granted without the order of the RDO under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is not proper and directed the Director of Urban Affairs to recall the permit. The District Collector was also asked to take action under Section 13 of the Wetland Act and disciplinary proceedings were recommended to be initiated against the Village Officer and Agricultural Officer. Pursuant to Ext.P17, the Municipality issued Ext.P18 order stating that in the light of Ext.P17 order of the RDO, the revised building permit cannot be granted. The petitioner challenges Ext.P17 contending that the same is passed in total defiance to Ext.P10 judgment passed by this Court wherein this Court, while dismissing W.P.(C)No.10547/2014 filed by the 4[th] respondent, held that the property covered by Exts.P2 and P3 will not fall within the definition of paddy or wetland. Ext. P18 order issued by the 2[nd] respondent based on Ext. P7 is also impugned. The petitioner has also sought for direction to W.P.(C) 22766/2016 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** respondents 1 and 2 to grant revised building permit applied for under Ext. P11. 3. This Court, by order dated 07.07.2016, has stayed the operation of Ext.P17 until further orders. 4. In compliance with the directions of this Court in Ext. P10 judgment, the Municipality issued Ext. P23 revised permit for construction of 105 apartments in 18 floors. While so, when the construction of the building was completed as per the revised building permit and the interior work was going on, the District Collector passed Ext. P24 order taking further action on the basis of the recommendation of the RDO in Ext. P17 order. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 7140 of 2018 challenging Ext. P24 and this Court stayed the operation of Ext. P24. When the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings against the District Collector and the 4[th] respondent, Ext. P24 was cancelled by the District Collector by Ext. P27 order. The 4[th] respondent tendered unconditional apology for not disclosing the earlier orders of the Court he W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :8: suffered before the District Collector and the Contempt case was closed accepting the apology. W.P. (C) No. 7140 of 2018 was later closed on the basis of Ext. P27. 5. This Court, taking note of the fact that the construction of the building has been completed and occupancy certificate has been issued, passed an order on 02.07.2019 directing respondents 1 and 2 to provisionally number the apartments constructed by the petitioner as per Ext. P23. 6. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that as per Ext. R4 (a) report of the Village Officer, the property in question is 'nilam' and the property will fall within the limits of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent wherein it is stated that Ext. P17 order has been passed pursuant to the complaint of the 4[th] respondent, referred to in Ext. P15. It is stated that the RDO found that the property comprised in Survey No. 1381 of Nadama village is classified W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :9: as paddy land in revenue records and therefore, permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or Section 27 A of the Wetland Act was necessary and there is no irregularity or illegality in Ext. P17 order. 8. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent pointing out that Ext. P17 order has been issued by the RDO without considering Ext. P10 judgment of this Court to which the 4[th] respondent and the RDO were parties. The petitioner relies on the entry in Ext. P3 Data Bank to contend that the land was converted 5 years prior to its publication and that Section 27A applies only in respect of conversions made after the introduction of the amendment w.e.f 30.12.2017. 9. Heard Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the Municipality and Sri.Hanil Kumar, the learned Government Pleader. 10. Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the specific finding of this W.P.(C) 22766/2016 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Court in Ext. P10 judgment that the property of the petitioner in Sy. No.1381 will not fall within the definition of paddy or wet land as defined in Act 28 of 2008, Ext. P17 order of the RDO cannot be sustained. It is also contended by the leaned senior counsel that W.P.(C) No. 10547/2014 is filed by the 4[th] respondent and others alleging that the petitioner reclaimed paddy land in contravention of the Wetland Act and started construction. However, this Court, by Ext. P10 judgment, dismissed the said writ petition on finding that the property will not fall within the definition of paddy or wetland as defined under the Wetland Act and the 4[th] respondent cannot, thereafter, re-agitate the issue before the RDO and the RDO cannot pass Ext. P17 order in total disregard to the findings in Ext. P10 judgment. 11. Sri. Hanil Kumar, the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Ext. P17 order has been passed based on the entries in the revenue records. 12. In the year 2012, when the petitioner approached W.P.(C) 22766/2016 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the Municipality for building permit, they required the petitioner to obtain permission under the Wetland Act. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.3033/2013 contending that no portion of the property is remaining as wetland and no paddy cultivation was there in the property or in the nearby properties and produced Ext.P2 certificate of the village officer certifying that the property was converted much prior to the commencement of the Wetland Act. The petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in **Mohammed Abdul Basheer** (supra) wherein this Court held that, if the land in question was converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the property in question cannot be described as 'paddy field' or 'wet land' coming within the purview of the said Act and the question regarding grant of building permit need be decided taking into consideration of the ground reality existing. This Court, after hearing both sides, found that the application of the petitioner for building W.P.(C) 22766/2016 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** permit has to be considered and dealt with in the manner as specified in **Mohammed Abdul Basheer** (supra). It was after taking into account the factors mentioned in **Mohammed Abdul Basheer** (supra) that the Municipality issued Ext.P6 building permit. 13. When the construction progressed in accordance with Ext. P6 permit, the 4[th] respondent and certain other residents filed W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 to restrain the petitioner from proceeding with the construction and to direct the District Collector to conduct an enquiry in respect of the permissions, if any, obtained by the petitioner for doing construction activities in Sy No. 1381 of Nadama Village. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by Ext. P10 judgment. In the nature of the controversies, it will be apposite to extract the full judgment which reads as follows: “The petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.11294/2014 & 25429/2014 is one and the same. The petitioner is a house construction society which undertakes construction works on behalf of its members. In W.P.(C) No.11294/2014, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent therein not to interfere with the construction of the residential flat. In W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :13: No.25429/2014, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 2[nd] respondent Municipality to consider their revised application for building permit. 2. W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 is filed by the petitioners alleging that the petitioner in W.P.(C)Nos.25429/2014 & 11294/2014 reclaimed land in contravention of Act 28 of 2008. According to them, those lands are paddy land and construction is being undertaken illegally by contravening the provisions of the Act. 3. In W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 a statement has been filed by the 4[th ] respondent-Village Officer. It is stated therein that the land comprised in Sy.Nos.1381 & 1382/2 are recorded as Nilam in the basic tax register. However, these properties are included in the Draft Data Bank and it is recorded as converted paddy land before fve years ago and partially converted respectively. The other property situated in Sy Nos.1382/3 and 1390/1 are purayidam. In view of the above, the property will not fall within the defnition of paddy or wet land as defned in Act 28 of 2008. 4. If the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 have a case that the property in which the construction is going on is to be treated as paddy land, their remedy is to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee. However, as per the statement of the village oficer, the property is not classifed as paddy land. Hence, I do not fnd any merit in W.P.(C) No.10547/2014. 5. W.P.(C) No.25429/2014 is filed on account of the pendency of W.P.(C) No.10547/2014. In view of the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.10547/2014, the impugned orders in W.P.(C)No.25429/2014 & 11294/2014 are set aside. There shall be a direction to the first respondent-Municipality in W.P.(C) No.25429/2014 to reconsider the petitioner's revised application in accordance with law. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 is dismissed and W.P.(C) Nos.11294/2014 & 25429/2014 are allowed.” ( _underling supplied_ ) W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :14: 14. As submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, there is a specific finding in Ext. P10 judgment that the aforesaid property of the petitioner will not fall within the definition of paddy or wet land as defined in Act 28 of 2008. The contention of the 4[th] respondent that the lands are paddy lands and petitioner reclaimed the lands in contravention of the Wetland Act was negatived by this Court and the writ petition filed by the 4[th] respondent was dismissed and the judgment has attained finality. 15. The 4[th] respondent, without mentioning Ext. P10 judgment, approached the RDO alleging that the petitioner has illegally reclaimed paddy land and is constructing flat in Sy. Nos. 1381 and 1382 leading to water logging in the area. Though the petitioner brought Ext. P10 judgment to the notice of the RDO, the RDO passed Ext. P17 order holding that the property comprised in Survey No. 1381 of Nadama village is classified as paddy land in revenue records and W.P.(C) 22766/2016 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** therefore, permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or Section 27 A of the Wetland Act was necessary and directed the Director of Urban affairs to recall the permit and further directed the District Collector to take action under Section 13 of the Wetland Act. 16. In Ext. P10 judgment, the learned Judge, after considering the statement of the village officer that the property is not classified as paddy land, found that the property comprised in Survey No. 1381 will not fall within the definition of paddy or wet land as defined in Act 28 of 2008. The contention of the 4[th] respondent and others that the lands are paddy lands and petitioner reclaimed the lands in contravention of the Wetland Act was negatived by this Court and the writ petition was dismissed. The finding in Ext. P10 judgment has become final. The RDO is bound by the findings of this Court in Ext. P10 judgment. The RDO and the 4[th] respondent were parties to Ext. P10 judgment and they could have challenged the same in appeal or could have sought for W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :16: a review of the judgment. Until the judgment is set aside in appeal or recalled by this Court, it remains to be a good and valid judgment and the findings therein are binding on them. The 3[rd] respondent could not himself sit in appeal over it. Ext. P17 order contrary to the findings in Ext. P10 judgment cannot be sustained. When the contention of the 4[th] respondent that the lands are paddy lands and petitioner reclaimed the lands in contravention of the Wetland Act was rejected by this Court by Ext. P10 judgment, the RDO should not have entertained the complaint of the 4[th] respondent and entered findings contrary to the findings therein, as if the said authority is sitting in appeal over Ext. P10 judgment. Ext. P17 is, accordingly, set aside. 17. During the pendency of the writ petition, Ext. P23 revised building permit has been issued by the Municipality. It is already recorded that the construction of the building has been completed pursuant to Ext. P23 and Ext. P30 occupancy certificate has also been issued to the occupants of W.P.(C) 22766/2016 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the building. This Court, by order dated 02.07.2019, had directed respondents 1 and 2 to provisionally number the apartments (105), constructed by the petitioner as per Ext. P23. It is stated that the apartment owners have formed their association to meet the statutory requirements. It is also submitted that land tax due to the Revenue Department has been paid and the tax due to the Municipality for each apartments is being paid. The provisional building number allotted to the apartments pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.07.2019 shall be made absolute by allotting regular building numbers by the respondents 1 and 2 by formal proceedings issued in that regard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :18: ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22766/2016`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTIES`| ||`PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE`| ||`VILLAGE OFFICER NADAMA ON 16-07-2012`| |`P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO 2227/10`| ||`DATED 17-03-2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE`| ||`OFFICER, NADAMA`| |`P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO`| ||`PW.4/11273/10 DATED 17-08-2011 ALONG WITH`| ||`RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK NOTIFIED`| ||`BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY`| |`P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 31-01-2013`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO`| ||`THE PETITIONER`| |`P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05-04-2013`| ||`IN W.P (C) NO 3033/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE`| ||`COURT`| |`P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT VIDE NO BA`| ||`231/12-13 DATED 7.12.2013 ISSUED TO THE`| ||`PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`| |`P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED`| ||`9.04.2013 IN W.P.© NO.10547/2014 OF THIS`| ||`HON’BLE COURT.`| |`P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-04-2014 IN`| ||`W.P(C) NO 11294/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE`| ||`COURT`| |`P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-09-`| ||`2014 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL`| ||`OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA.`| |`P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2014 IN`| ||`W.P.(C)NO.25429/2014 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.`| |`P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED APPLICATION DATED`| ||`05-01-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`| ||`BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`| |`P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT`| ||`NO.PCB/RO-EKM/EKM/ICE-23/13 DATED 22-07-2013`| ||`OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD`| |`P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL NO`| ||`D/277/15/K. DIS DATED 23-06-2015 OF SENIOR`| ||`TOWN PLANNER`| |`P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE FIRE AND SAFETY CLEARANCE`| W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :19: ||`CERTIFICATE NO. F2-6467/15 DATED 19-05-2016`| |---|---| ||`ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE & RESCUE`| ||`SERVICES`| |`P15`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO K2-1052/16`| ||`DATED 05-04-2016 WITH THE INCOMPLETE`| ||`COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`| |`P16`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY`| ||`THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON`| ||`18-04-2016`| |`P17`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT`| ||`VIDE NO K2-1052/16/K.DIS DATED 10-06-2016`| ||`COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER ON 29-06-2016`| |`P18`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22-06-`| ||`2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY`| ||`ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER`| |`P19`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30-06-`| ||`2016 ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT TO THE`| ||`PETITIONER SOCIETY`| |`P20`|`TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY REPORT OF THE`| ||`TALUK SURVEYOR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM`| |`P21`|`COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE VIDE NO.S1-`| ||`11373/2012 DATED 13.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER AFTER`| ||`SURVEY.`| |`P22`|`COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE VIDE NO.S7-1356/15`| ||`DATED 4.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL`| ||`TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER AFTER RE-SURVEY.`| |`P23`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED BUILDING PERMIT`| ||`VIDE NO.BA-231/12-13 DATED 22.09.2016 ISSUED`| ||`BY THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY`| |`P24`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE`| ||`NO.56544/16/L10/K.DIS DATED 07.02.2018 OF`| ||`THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.`| |`P25`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2018 IN`| ||`W.P.(C)NO.7140/2018 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.`| |`P26`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2018 IN`| ||`W.P.(C)NO.7140/2018 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.`| |`P27`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE`| ||`NO.56544/16/L10/K.DIS DATED 05.05.2018 OF`| ||`THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`| |`P28`|`TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT IN CONT.CASE NO.549/2018 BEFORE`| ||`THIS HON’BLE COURT ON 11.07.2018.`| ## W.P.(C) 22766/2016 |||| |---|---|---| |W.P.(C)|22766/2016|:20:| |`P29`||`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2018`| |||`IN CONT.CASE NO.549/2018 OF THIS HON’BLE`| |||`COURT.`| |`P30`||`TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED`| |||`23.10.2018 ISSUED BY RULE 22(3) OF THE`| |||`KERALA MUNICIPAL BUILDING RULES.`| |`P31`||`TRUE COPY OF THE FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING`| |||`THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF`| |||`PURCHASE.`| |`P32`||`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT VIDE`| |||`NO.PP-01/17 DATED 27.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY`| |||`THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`P33`||`TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL VIDE NO.PP-01/17`| |||`DATED 10.11.2017 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE`| |||`THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT`| |||`ON 13.11.2017.`| |`P34`||`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE`| |||`NO.PW-4/BA/231/12-13 DATED 27.07.2018 ALONG`| |||`WITH ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING HUMAN`| |||`RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT.`| |`P35`||`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT VIDE NO.PP-01/18`| |||`DATED 01.08.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`| |||`BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`P36`||`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE`| |||`NO.BSAP/2018/AUG-I/3080 DATED 01.08.2018 OF`| |||`THE PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT.`| |`P37`||`TRUE COPY OF THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT`| |||`THE TIME OF 2018 FLOOD DISASTER THROUGHOUT`| |||`THE STATE SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE 4TH`| |||`RESPONDENT.`| |`P38`||`TRUE COPY OF THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING`| |||`CONSTRUCTION OF MPS BUILDERS AND NEARBY`| |||`FLATS`| |`P39`||`COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE WITH REGARD TO THE`| |||`BUILDING NUMBERS ISSUED BY THE IST`| |||`RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 30-07-209`| |`P40`||`COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL OCCUPANCY`| |||`CERTIFICATE DATED 23.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE`| |||`IST RESPONDENT`| |`P41`||`COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS (TYPICAL FOR EACH`| |||`TYPE) DATED 14/10/2019 PAID FOR EACH`| |||`CATEGORY OF APARTMENTS TOTALING THE NUMBER`| |||`OF APARTMENTS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT`| |`P42`||`COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED`| W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :21: ||`27/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT`| |---|---| |`P43`|`COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE`| ||`NO.EKM/TC/211/2020 DATED 08/06/2020 ISSUED`| ||`BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM,`| ||`COCHIN TO PETRO PALACE APARTMENT OWNERS`| ||`ASSOCIATION.`| |`P44`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION`| ||`VIDE NO.EKM/TC/211/2020 DT. 08.06.2020`| ||`ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES.`| |`P45`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-`| ||`2088/214 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.`| |`P45(A)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE`| ||`NO.KL07020503789/2022 DATED 18.03.2022`| ||`ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.`| |`P45(B)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-`| ||`20881/21 27 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.`| |`P45(C)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE`| ||`NO.KL07020504516/2022 DATED 31.03.2022`| ||`ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.`| |`P45 (D)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE No.B6-`| ||`20881/21 dated 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.`| |`P45 (E)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE`| ||`NO.KL07020504524/2022 DATED 31.03.2022`| ||`ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER`| |`P45 (F)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-`| ||`20881/21 68 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.`| |`P45 (G)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE`| ||`NO.KL07020504536/2022 DATED 31.03.2022`| ||`ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.`| |`P45 (H)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-`| ||`20881/21 78 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR`| |`P45 (I)`|`TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT VIDE`| ||`NO.KL07020504532/2022 DATED 31.03.2022`| ||`ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.`| |`P45 (J)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE`| ||`NO.KL07020504537/2022 DATED 31.03.2022`| ||`ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER`| |`P45 (K)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-`| ||`20881/21 102 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE`| W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :22: ``` KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR P45 (L)TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL07020503774/2022 DATED 18.03.2022 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA DATED 02.03.2016 EXT.R4A ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AS AVAILABLE IN GOOGLE EARTH SHOWING THE ORIGINAL NATURE OF EXT.R4A THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2005, 2006 & 2008. THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER’S EXT.R4BPROPERTY AND THAT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN THE YEAR 2011. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AND EXT.R4CTHE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OF THE YEAR 2015 AND 2016 AS AVAILABLE IN GOOGLE EARTH. PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ORIGINAL NATURE OF LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER EARLIER AND EXT.R4D THAT OF THE PRESENT CONDITION AND ALSO THAT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING WATER LOGGING IN THE EXT.R4E PROPERTY OF 4TH RESPONDENT. TRUE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NEWS ITEM EXT.R4FPUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI NEWS PAPER DATED 7.09.2017. EXHIBIT R3ATHE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT. ``` ## **spc/**