Falcon Infrastructures Limited v. State of Kerala and ors.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 20159 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** FALCON INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED AGED 63 YEARS P.B.NO.4030, PUTHIYA ROAD JUNCTION, UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O, ELOOR, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR N.A.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O AYAMU HAJI, BLOSSOMS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022 BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR P.R.REENA RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR FORTKOCHI, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001 4 TAHSILDAR PARAVUR TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513 5 ADDL.R5 ABBAS M.P., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.PACKAR, MADAPPATTU HOUSE, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683501 [ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.08.2023 IN I.A-2/2023 IN WP(C) 20159/2023] BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA RENJITH RAJAPPAN SHRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN SPL. G.P TO A.G() SAM M.THOMAS(K/000935/2015) **OTHER PRESENT:** SPL.GP - C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **VIJU ABRAHAM,J** ## **-----------------------** ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 ------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of January, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P9 and P10 and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the activity of the petitioner in making 1.84 acres of land in survey No.121 of Eloor Village covered by Ext.P1 for vehicle parking, under the guise of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, since the petitioner's land is an un-notified land. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a public limited company, which is the pioneer in logistic services in the State of Kerala. The petitioner company was established in the year 2000 with the support of around 200 nonresident Indians residing in Gulf countries and the petitioner company is the first logistics service centre in the country. The petitioner company has a total extent of 24.5 Acres of land ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 2** in old Sy.No.121, 122 and 123 (Re-Sy.No.1, Block No.93) of Eloor Village abutting the “Vallarpadam Container Terminal Road” within Eloor Village. In the aforesaid 24.5 acres of land, the petitioner apart from logistic services, has also established various other facilities with a total initial investment of around 30 crores. Though the maximum ceiling area is 15 acres as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1963’), the Government as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders exempted the entire land of the petitioner from the ceiling provisions as mandated as per Section 81(3) of the Act 1963. Thereafter, Ext.P15 gazette notification was also published by the Government exempting the land from the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Act 1963 invoking the power under Section 81(3) of the said Act, wherein it is specifically stated that the land shall be used only for the purpose of industrial and commercial activities and for purposes directly connected therewith and that the land shall not be used for any other purpose other ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 3** than that mentioned in Clause(2). 3. Petitioner submits that out of 24.5 Acres of land, large portion of land was already converted as garden land much prior to 2000 and the land that was not converted in the year 2000 was converted as garden land on the strength of orders obtained under the Kerala Land Utilization Order by the petitioner, as is evident from Exts.P3, P4 and P5. It is contended that on the strength of Exts.P3 to P5, the land in Sy.Nos.121,122 and 123 of Eloor Village were made garden land during the period from 2003 to 2005 much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act, 2008'). The petitioner contended that since there were serious traffic problems all through the container road due to the parking of container trucks, fuel tanker lorries, etc. by the side of the container road, the District Collector convened a meeting to resolve the issue and issued a notice of hearing dated 17.4.2023. Since around 1.84 acres of land of the petitioner in **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 4** Sy.No.121/5, 6,7,8, 10 and 11 could be utilised for parking the tanker lorries, the Regional Transport Officer as well as the SHO of local police station on behalf of the City Police Commissioner along with Indian Oil Corporation officials visited the petitioner's premises after the meeting convened by the District Collector and had requested to provide the facilities for parking tanker lorries of Indian Oil Corporation in the aforesaid 1.84 Acres of land. The said request was agreeable to the petitioner also. Since the above 1.84 acres of land in Sy.No.121/5,6,7,8 and 10 is not fit for constant vehicular parking during rainy season, the land could be made for parking purposes by spreading ordinary earth. Thereupon, the petitioner had made proper arrangements in the land. While so, Ext.P8 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer. Petitioner submits that he has challenged Ext.P8 by filing WP(C)No.16781/2023, while the writ petition was pending consideration, Ext.P9 prohibitory order was issued by the 3[rd] respondent. ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 5** Consequent to Ext.P9, the petitioner has been issued with Ext.P10 notice for inspecting the petitioner's property. 4. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the whole extent of property has been exempted from the ceiling provision under the Act 1963, as is evident from Exts.P1, P2 and P15 and that in Ext.P15 there is a specific condition that for grant of exemption the land shall be used only for the purpose of industrial and commercial activities and for the purposes directly connected therein and that the land should not be used for any other purpose. Petitioner submits that the property has not been included in the data bank and admittedly, the property is an un-notified land. Petitioner contended that what is attempted is only levelling the land so as to enable parking of the lorries as requested by the District Collector and the Indian Oil Corporation authorities so as to avoid parking of lorries by the side of the container road and therefore the provisions of Section 27A of the Act, 2008 will ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 6** not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioner would contend that going by Section 27A of the Act, 2008 an application under the said provision needs to be filed before the RDO for permission by the owner of any unnotified land only if he desires to utilize such land for residential or commercial or for other purposes. Admittedly, the petitioner's property is an un-notified land. Section 27A will have application when there is a need for change of nature of un-notified land to be utilized for residential or commercial or for other purposes. Petitioner would contend that the change of nature of un-notified land has been defined in Section 2(i) of the Act, 2008, as such act or series of acts whereby the nature of an unnotified land is changed or has been changed irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means. On the basis of the same, the petitioner would contend that only if they intend to change the nature of unnotified land and the change being a change of ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 7** an irreversible nature and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means then only they are obliged to file an application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008. It is contended that what they are now attempting is only to level the property which is admittedly an unnotified land that does not form part of the data bank, it cannot be said that the activities now undertaken by them come with the definition of change of nature of unnotified land as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act, 2008. Therefore, the issuance of Exts.P9 and P10 is absolutely without any authority and it is liable to be interfered with. 5. The respondent State has filed a statement as well as a detailed counter affidavit, supporting the impugned orders wherein it is contended that the exemption obtained as per Section 81(3) of the Act 1963 from the ceiling area cannot be concluded as a blanket order for conducting any activity in such land otherwise than in accordance with law. Since the property ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 8** comes under the definition of the unnotified land defined under Section 2 xvii(A) of the Act 2008, before undertaking any conversion activities in the said property, the petitioner is bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 27A of the Act,2008. 6. A further affidavit has also been filed by the 3[rd] respondent dated 15.11.2023 wherein it is stated on the strength of Ext.R3(c) Google map that the extent of disputed land lies to the west of land in Ext.R3(b) property and the measurement of which was taken up using measurement tools in Google map and was remaining unfilled in 2022, which is having an extent of 1.86 Acres and that the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer have reported that only 10% of the disputed land has been converted as on 15.5.2023. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the additional 5[th] respondent also, who got impleaded in the writ petition. The additional 5[th] respondent submitted that the petitioner cannot even claim the benefit of exemption from the Act 1963 as ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 9** provided in Exts.P1, P2 and P3 orders in as much as there was a specific condition that the land should be put for industrial and commercial activities within a period of two years from the date of publication of notification in the official gazette, that is Ext.P15 and till date the property has not been used for industrial and commercial activities and therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of the exemption granted as per Ext.P15. 8. An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by the 5[th] respondent, contending that the averment of the petitioner that they were in possession of filled and unfilled paddy lands prior to the issuance of Exts.P3 to P5 orders issued under the Kerala Land Utilization Order is without any basis. The 5th respondent relying on Ext.R5(a) possession and Non-attachment certificate issued by the 4[th] respondent dated 27.3.2003 submits that the petitioner was in possession of 15 acres 49 cents and 750 Sq links situated in Eloor Village, Paravur Taluk. The 5th **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 10** respondent also relies on Ext.R5(b) report submitted by the Village Officer and the RDO and contended that the petitioner was in possession and ownership of 11.04278 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.121, 122 and 123. Based on the said document it is argued that the contention of the petitioner that they were in possession of filled and unfilled paddy land prior to the issuance of Ext.P3 to P5 orders is absolutely incorrect and false, and further contended that the petitioner company has suppressed the actual extent of land in their possession while applying for Exts.P3 to P5 orders and they acquired the remaining properties after the issuance of said orders. The 5[th] respondent also contended that the petitioner company itself approached the 1[st] respondent with an application under Section 10 of the Act, 2008 seeking exemption from the provisions of the Act on the ground that the land is utilized for public purpose by filing Ext.R5(c) application, which was later rejected by Ext.R5(d)order of the Government holding that there is no public purpose involved ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 11** in the activity undertaken by the petitioner so as to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act, 2008. The 5[th] respondent further contended that the petitioner is not running any Customs notified Container Freight Station and relying on Exts.R5(e)and R5(f)contended that the petitioner company had successfully de-notified the CFS department after the flood of 2018 and in the financial statement of the petitioner company for the year 2021-2022, the total revenue from Container Freight Station is shown as 'nil'. 9. I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsels on both sides and also the learned Special Government Pleader. 10. It is seen that when Ext.P8 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.16781 of 2023 which was disposed of as per judgment in _**FALCON Infrastructures Limited v. State of Kerala**_ _**(2023 KHC online 535)**_ . This court relying on the judgment in _**Deepu D v. District Collector, Kollam and Others (2022 (4) KLT 583)**_ , held that when the ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 12** present usage of the land is for the activities providing services and facilities like cargo moving facility, supply chain management, container freight station, fuel station, weigh Bridge, dormitory for container lorry drivers and staff, bank, toilets, godowns, parking spaces, truck maintenance workshop, customs bonded CFS area, etc., and since the present work being carried out is only for facilitating parking of lorries, and that the petitioner is going to use the land only for the purposes for which the land was used as on 30.12.2017, no permission of Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A is required and holding so Ext.P26 (Ext.P8 in this writ petition) was set aside. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that an appeal has been preferred as Writ Appeal No. 1691 of 2023 challenging the said judgment and the same is admitted and pending consideration before this court. Admittedly, the property is covered by Exts.P1, P2 and P15 orders issued by the Government wherein property was exempted from the ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 13** provisions of the Act 1963 on a specific condition that the property will be used for industrial and commercial activities. In Exts. P3 to P5 exemption order granted as per the Kerala Land Utilization order, there is a specific finding that there is no paddy cultivation in the said land where exemption is granted. It is to be noted that Exts.P3 and P5 are not in respect of the entire property of 9.7295 hectares for which the exemption was granted as per Ext.P1. The property has not been included in the data bank also. By Ext.P1 order, exemption has been granted specifically taking note of the aspect that the entire area has been used for commercial/business activities. 11. The issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner could be permitted to level the subject property for the purpose of vehicle parking without undergoing the proceedings under Section 27A of the Act 2008 since the petitioner’s land is an unnotified land. This Court referred to the judgment in _**Deepu’s**_ case cited supra while ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 14** deciding the **FALCON Infrastructure’s** case cited supra. Paragraph 28 of **Deepu’s** case cited supra reads as follows: _28. For the afore reasons, it is declared that permission of Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A is necessary only if owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, than one for which the unnotified land was used as on 30.12.2017. It is therefore held that if an unnotified land is used for residential or commercial purpose as on 30.12.2017, no permission of Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A would be required if the owner of the land carries out any activity relating to the residential or commercial purpose as the case may be, for the reason that by such activity, there is no resultant 'change of nature of unnotified land' as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, 2008.”_ ( _underline supplied)_ Following Deepu’s case, this Court held in **FALCON Infrastructure’s** case cited supra in paragraphs Nos.29 and 30 as follows: _“29. In the case of the petitioner, the 24.5 Acres land was possessed by the petitioner since 2002-2003 and soon thereafter. The land is not cultivated with paddy for long. There are official reports that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation due to inadequate irrigation and drainage facilities and due to flow of industrial waste from nearby industrial units. The land is being used for services and facilities like Cargo Moving facility, Supply Chain Management, Container Freight Station, Fuel Station, Weigh Bridge, Dormitories for Container Lorry Drivers_ ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 15** _and Staff, Bank, Toilets, Godowns, Parking spaces, Truck Maintenance Workshop, Customs bonded CFS area, etc._ _30. When the present nature of land usage is as stated above and since the work being carried out is only for facilitating parking of lorries, as long as the petitioner is going to use the land only for the purposes for which the land was used as on 30.12.2017, no permission of Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A is required. Ext.P26 therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Ext.P26 is therefore set aside.”_ ( _underline supplied)_ In those judgments, this Court has permitted the petitioner therein only for activities for which the land was used as on 30.12.2017 and held that no permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A is required. It is pertinent to note that in **Deepu’** s case cited supra there is a specific finding by the court that though the land is described as paddy land in Revenue Records, it is in fact a garden land. Therefore, the question is as to the nature of the land and the activity undertaken by the petitioner on the said land as on 30.12.2017, the date on which Section 27A was introduced in the statute book, for which the document that is relied on by the ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 16** petitioner is Ext.P1, exemption granted from the ceiling proceedings and also Exts P3 to P5 permission granted under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. I am of the view that Ext P1 exemption from the ceiling provision will not by itself entitle the petitioner to get exemption from the provisions of Section 27A of the Act 2008. Ext P3 to P5 permission granted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is not for the whole extent of land covered by Ext P1 and is only for an extent of 15.24 Acres. It is true that in **Deepu’s** case and _**FALCON Infrastructures Limited’** s_ case cited supra this court has held that permission under Section 27A of the Act, 2008 is required only for such activities other than the one for which the unnotified land was used as on 30.12.2017. 12. The issue raised in the writ petition is only regarding 1.84 Acres of land in Sy No. 121 of Eloor Village covered by Ext P1. The contention of the petitioner is that the whole of the property covered by Ext P1 is either used as custom bonded ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 17** area or for business purposes. If in fact the said area including 1.84 Acres in question is used for the purposes mentioned in Ext P1, then naturally provisions of Section 27A of the Act, 2008 will not have any application and the case of the petitioner will be covered by the decision in ## **Deepu’s** case and _**FALCON Infrastructures Limited’** s_ case cited supra. Therefore, the crucial aspect for determination is as to the nature and usage of land having an extent of 1.84 Acres in Sy No. 121 of Eloor Village as on 13.12.2017, the date on which Section 27A was introduced in the Statute Book. This Court as per order dated 10.11.2023 has permitted the Government to conduct an inspection of the property involved in this writ petition and after the inspection, an affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in which it is stated that the 3rd respondent along with other officers attempted to identify the status of the disputed land which revealed that the extent of disputed area of approximately 1.86 Acres remained unfilled as on 2022 and that only 10% of the disputed land ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 18** has been converted on 15.05.2023. It is also reported that the filling of the disputed land will result in environmental degradation and other issues including incidents of water logging and flooding in the surrounding area. If in fact, the property remained unfilled as on 2022, it cannot be held that the levelling of the land by filling the same to make it suitable for the purpose of parking lorries can be considered as an activity for which the unnotified land was used as on 30.12.2017. 13. It is pertinent to note that this court in _**Global Educational Trust v. State of Kerala, 2020 (6)KLT 738**_ has held that permission under Section 27A of the Act 2008 cannot be insisted in respect of a land already utilized by constructing building prior to incorporation of Section 27A in the Statute Book even though the same was done without obtaining permission under the KLU order. But the court has imposed a rider that it has to be verified as to whether the proposed construction or reconstruction exceeds the **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 19** appurtenant land covered by existing construction and if any construction or reconstruction is proposed beyond the utilization of land already done, that has to be regularized by submitting application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008. Paragraph 9 of the judgment in _**Global Educational Trust**_ cited supra reads as follows: |_“9. Therefore, I am of the considered view that_| |---| |_S.27A of Act 28 of 2008 cannot be insisted in_| |_respect of a land already utilised by_| |_constructing building prior to incorporation of_| |_27A of Act 28 of 2008 even without obtaining_| |_permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation_| |_Order.However, it has to be verified from such_| |_application for building permit whether the_| |_proposed construction or reconstruction exceeds_| |_the appurtenant land covered by existing_| |_construction._<br>_If_<br>_any_<br>_construction_<br>_or_| |_reconstruction is proposed beyond the_| |_utilisation of the land already done, that has_| |_to be regularised by submitting application_| |_under S.27A of Act 28 of 2008._<br>_The rigor of_| |_S.27A of Act 28 of 2008 cannot be insisted upon_| |_the land which has been utilised by_| |_constructing buildings with valid permit or_| |_through the process of law before incorporation_| |_of S.27 A of Act of 28 of 2008.”_| |_(underline supplied)_| 14. In view of the above, I am of the opinion ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 20** that before permitting the petitioner to undertake any activity as requested by them, the nature of the land and the activity undertaken by the petitioner in the said land as on 30.12.2017, the date on which Section 27A came into force is to be ascertained as held by this Court in _**Global Educational Trust**_ ’s case cited supra so as to determine as to whether permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A of the Act 2008 is required or not. Therefore, till that process is undertaken and finalized, I am not inclined to interfere with Exts. P9 and P10 impugned in this writ petition. 15. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires consideration by the respondents to verify as to the exact extent of land covered by Ext P1 which is decided to be used by the petitioner for the activity of levelling the land for the purpose of facilitating parking of lorries and as to the nature of the said land and the activity undertaken by the petitioner in the said land as on the date of coming into force **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 21** of Section 27A of the Act, 2008 in the Statute Book, i.e., 30.12.2017. The said exercise shall be undertaken by respondents 2 to 3 with notice to the petitioner and shall finalize the same in accordance with the law, if required, after getting the satellite images from the competent remote sensing agency which would give clarity regarding the nature of the land and the activities undertaken therein as on 30.12.2017, within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and communicate the result of the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 22** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20159/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS). NO.222/2018 DATED 14.6.2018 - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER GO(MS).NO.343/2018.REVENUE DATED 26.9.2018 - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT).NO.440/02/AD DATED 15.05.2002 - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORTKOCHI DATED 22.05.2002 - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORTKOCHI DATED 08.05.2003 - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK PREPARED BY LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, ELOOR - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR DATED 13.06.2023 - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR DATED 15.06.2023 - RESPONDENT ANNEXURES - Annexure R3(b) True copy of the letter dated 21-062023 issued from the office of the fourth respondent, Tahsildar (Land Records), Taluk Office, North Paravur ## **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 23** to the petitioner - Annexure R3(c) True copy of the notice accepted by the petitioner - Annexure R3(a) True copy of the letter dated 20-062023 of the petitioner addressed to the Tahsildar(Land Records), Taluk Office, North Paravur - Annexure R3(d) True copy of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Paravur. - PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P11 True copy of the decision reported in 2021(1) KHC 337 (Jalal K M v. Village Officer Kuruppampady and Anor) - Exhibit P12 True copy of the judgment in WP(c).No.16781/2023 dated 09.08.2023 - Exhibit P13 Copy of the photograph showing present state of affairs of petitioner's land - Exhibit P14 True copy of the government order GO(Ms).No.343/2018.Revenue dated 26.9.2018 - Exhibit P15 True copy of the gazette notification SRO.237/2019 dated 12.03.2019 - Exhibit P 16 True copy of the SRO No.237/2019 dated 12.3.2019 - RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT R5(a) The true copy of the possession and Non-attachment certificate issued by the 4th Respondent dated 27.03.2003 - EXHIBIT R5(b) The true copy of the report issued by the Village Officer, Eloor dated 15.05.2002 EXHIBIT R5(c) The true copy of the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 24** before the Convener, Local Level Monitoring Committee - EXHIBIT R5(d) The true copy of the order issued by the 1st respondent dated 21.05.2011 - EXHIBIT R5(e) The relevant pages of the Standalone Financial Statements of the petitioner for the Financial Year 2019-2020 - EXHIBIT R5(f) The relevant pages of the Standalone Financial Statements of the petitioner for the Financial Year 2021-2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P17 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE POLICE PARTY AND THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER COMING INTO THE PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY AND THE BROKEN LOCK AND THE DAMAGED GATE OF THE PROPERTY - Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 04.11.2023 - Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 05.11.2023 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - Exhibit R3(a) Pendrive containing videographs taken in mobile phone depicting the incident. (The pendrive is produced along with the physical copy of the counter affidavit) Exhibit R3(c) True copy of the satellite picture taken with the help of google earth of the year 2009 Exhibit R3(d) True copy of the satellite picture taken with the help of google map of the year 2022 Exhibit R3(e) True copy of the satellite photographs with measurements **W.P.(C).No.20159 of 2023 25** Exhibit R3(b) True copy of the location sketch issued from the Village Office, Eloor on 21.03.2003