IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - In the Matter of Cochin Devaswom - Anonymous Complaint - Trespass in Vadayambadi Kottaram Temple Land Report No.35/2012 in Complaint No.44 of 2010 (Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated-REG).

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939** **DBP.No. 79 of 2012** **IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM -ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT-TRESPASS IN VADAYAMBADI KOTTARAM TEMPLE LAND REPORT NO.35/2012 IN COMPLAINT NO.44 OF 2010(SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED-REG).** **----------** ## **COMPLAINANT** **------------** ## **ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------** **1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THRISSUR.** - **ADDL.R2 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED** **2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **ADDL.R2 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.06.2012 IN DBP NO.79/2012 AND WPC.NO.4381/2012.** - **ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED** **3. SAJU THURUTHIKUNNEL,S/O.THANKAPPAN, THURUTHIKUNNEL HOUSE ,VADAYAMPADI KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 8.11.2012 IN IA.2735/2012.** - **ADDL.R4 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED** **4. A.B.RAJAN, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR,** - **ATHIYATHU HOUSE, VADAYAMBADI KARA P.O.** - **ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.01.2014.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC SRI.T.K.SAJEEV, SC** **R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ANANTHAKRISHNAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE R4 BY ADVS. SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.) SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR** **BY ADV.SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN** **THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **TS** **DBP.No. 79 of 2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES** ## **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 5.8.1994 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.3627 OF 1994 S.R.O. PUTHENCRUZ.** **ANNEXURE A2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.6.2000 OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA(APPELLATE AUTHORITY). ANNEXURE A3:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.9.2001 OF SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, KANAM TENANCY (ABOLITION),ERNAKULAM, ANNEXURE A4:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ANNEXURE A5:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.425/01 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE TO TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU. ANNEXURE A6:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT 16.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ANNEXURE A6(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT 16.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ANNEXURE A6(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT 16.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ANNEXURE A6(C):- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT 16.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE. ANNEXURE A7:- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 23.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE. ANNEXURE A7(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 23.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE. ANNEXURE A7(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 23.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE. ANNEXURE A7(C):- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 23.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE. ANNEXURE A8:- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 8.3.2006 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1850 OF 2006 OF S.R.O, PUTHENCRUIZ. ANNEXURE A9:- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.5.2008 FOR THE PERIOD UPTO 2008-2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE. ANNEXURE A10:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU.** **TS** **DBP.No. 79 of 2012** **ANNEXURE A11:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7.2.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE TO THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU.** **ANNEXURE A12:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** **ANNEXURE A13;- TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 29.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT TO SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.** **ANNEXURE A:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.13 OF 2013 IN IA.NO.2505/2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT R(3):- A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING CUTTING DOWN OF TREES BELONG TO THE TEMPLE.** **/TRUE COPY/** **PS TO JUDGE** **TS** **20/03/2018** ## P.R.Ramachandra Menon & Devan Ramachandran, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- DBP No.79 of 2012 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of March, 2018 ## **ORDER** ## **Devan Ramachandran, J.** This petition has been registered on the basis of Report No.35/2012, filed before this Court by the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. The report of the learned Ombudsman indicates that proceedings were initiated on the basis of an anonymous complaint received by him relating to the properties of the Vadayambadi Kottaram Temple, which is under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Cochin Devaswom Board (CDB). 2. The tenor of the aforesaid complaint appears to be that 60 cents of Devaswom land had been trespassed by the then Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee and transferred to the brother of the President of the Committee and that the revenue officials also connived with them to effect mutation in the revenue records, even though applications for such purpose were not supported by any basic documents. DBP 79/12 2 3. On the basis of this complaint, proceedings were initiated by the learned Ombudsman and reports were obtained from the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board, which, however, did not throw any light into the real state of affairs. The learned Ombudsman, therefore, more in a show of exasperation, filed this report stating that 'unless the pattern of working of the Office of the Special Tahsildar is changed no useful purpose will be served by its continuance' (sic). 4. Since the report of the learned Ombudsman is so phrased and since we were not in a position to obtain any further information, which this Court suspected, was on account of the fact that relevant information was deliberately being kept away, orders were issued directing that suitable investigation be ordered into the working of the Revenue Department through a proper vigilance enquiry. 5. Subsequently, after several orders were issued, it was recorded in the order dated 17.01.2014 that a vigilance enquiry had thus been initiated and that the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram has constituted a special team with effect from 03.01.2014 DBP 79/12 3 and that the vigilance enquiry has been numbered as VE01/2014/CRE posting a certain Sri.Haridas.P.K., Inspector of Police at the helm of affairs as its leader. 6. We must hasten to state that nothing else has been brought to our information after that. 7. Be that as it may, with respect to the properties of the Devaswom, this Court was concerned about the manner in which the Revenue Authorities were acting in allowing mutation in the name of several persons, of pieces and parcels of the same in fragmented extents, as if the properties never belonged to the Devaswom or even to the Government. This led to this Court issuing several other orders and the Land Revenue Commissioner was impleaded on record to obtain the best possible information. We are aware that a statement has been placed on record on behalf of the Land Revenue Commissioner on 31.07.2012, wherein very pertinent and vital information and allegations have been unequivocally stated and made. Since the statement contains information which are extremely important and crucial to further proceedings to be completed by the authorities, we deem it appropriate to DBP 79/12 4 ## extract the same as under: “1. It is submitted that in accordance with the direction of Hon'ble High Court in DBP No.79/2012 and WP(C)No. 4381/2012 Dated: 06/06/2012, Land Revenue Commissioner have constituted a team with the following members; I. Dr.D.Sajith Babu, Assistant Commissioner of Land Revenue, II. Sri.Jacob Sanjay John, Junior Superintendent, O/o CLR. 2. They were entrusted with the task of finding out irregularities if any; connected with the alleged encroachment of properties of Vadayambadi Kottaram temple in the Aikaranad South Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk of Ernakulam district which is under the control of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The team constituted have visited the site on 26.07.2012 along with the Special Village Officer and other Village Officials of Aikaranad South Village. During their visit they took depositions from Mr.A.B.Rajan and Mr.C.K.Gireesh Kumar, Devaswom Officer, Thiruvankulam, Thripunithura Group Devaswom, Cochin Devaswom Board. 3. On verification of records it is respectfully submitted that the Vadayambadi Kottaram temple and the properties there under come under the administrative control of Thripunithura Group Devaswom under the Cochin Devaswom Board constituted under Act XV of TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. This being so all the properties of Cochin Devaswom Board should be treated as Government lands and the provisions contemplated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [w.e.f. 22.11.2006 as per SRO no.811/2006] and Survey & Boundaries Act, 1961 have direct bearing on such properties. In this case towards settling the Kanam, the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 and Kanam Tenancy Abolition Act, 1976 are to be scrupulously followed by Tahsildar concerned towards fixing the tenure, on account of Government becoming janmi with effect from 01.01.1970. DBP 79/12 5 4. As per the Devaswom thandaper Number:7 of Aikaranad South Village, the Thripunithura Devaswom had 200.92.792 acres of land during the period 1975-76. The resurvey was finalized in the Aikaranad South Village in June, 1991. At the time of finalization of resurvey records, the Thripunithura Devaswom had 11.78.54 hectares of land comprised in Thandaper Number:576 and as on date, this has dwindled to 03.08.04 hectares pursuant to many Kanam settlements by the Tahsildars. Legally the original extent should be intact and no further alienations are possible form that extent on the following grounds: a. The resurvey records were finalized in June, 1991 after the 9[2] notification prescribed under Survey & Boundaries Act, 1961 and the objections if any could have been filed before the survey officer under the ALC [Appeal Land Complaint] stage. Once the final notification under section 13 is made, only the Survey Officer is empowered to make any change in the revenue records. b. The Kanam is a right which the cultivating tenant can claim from the Special Tahsildar, Kanam Tenancy Abolition, provided they should be the cultivating tenant as on the appointed day viz; 01.01.1970 in the land in question and their name or their predecessors' name should have appeared in the Janmikaram Settlement Register prescribed in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955. 5. It is respectfully submitted that one Mr.A.B.Rajan S/o Bhaskaran Nair, Athiyathu House, Vadayambadi Kara PO who is a document writer by profession, purchased and extent of 18.80 ares [46.44 cents] of land comprised in resurvey number 295/3 [Old survey number 139/14] and 295/4 [Old Survey number 140/5] of Aikaranad South Village from Sri.P.SKrishna Kutty, Sri.P.PPrabhakaran Nair, Smt.Ammini Amma and Sri.P.S Ramachandran through sale deed number : 1850/2006 dated 08.03.2006. The vendors got the title over the property by virtue of a Kanam settlement got in their favour through K.Dis/2323/2001 dated 29.09.2001 issued by Special Tahsildar, Kanam Tenancy (Abolition), Ernakulam for an extent of 19.30 ares. Since the connected file was closed as K.Dis [retained only for three years] for unknown reasons, the documents which DBP 79/12 6 the Special Tahsildar depended to settle the claim is not known. However, it is presumed that the Special Tahsildar must have relied heavily on the previous document number 3627/1994, which is a partition deed executed between the sellers on 05.08.1994. This particular deed has three mother deeds the details of which are given below: a. Partition Deed No.386/1954: This document executed on 09.02.1954, recites about Kanam in hold survey numbers 139/16 having 90 cents; 142/6 having 44 cents and 138/11 having 22 cents. b. Conveyance deed No.922/1963: This has been wrongly mentioned as 922/1973 in the document number 1850/2006. This document recited about **48 cents in old survey number 139/14/1** . c. Partition deed no.2686/1923: This particular deed recites about the old survey numbers 140/12 having 47.00 cents, 141/7 having 54.50 cents, 133/6 having 53.00 cents, 138/19 having 35.00 cents, 132/8 having 3.50 cents, 132/1 having 3.50 cents, 137/5 having 6.00 cents, 233/7 having 1.76 cents, 137/8 having 11.00 cents, 109/7 having 9.50 cents, 109/9 having 1.21 acres, 133/1 having 3.50 cents, 137/5 having 3.00 cents, **139/14 having 1.00 acre** . 6. The preliminary enquiry conducted by the above team revealed though this case involves many issues, prima facie it can be observed that, there is suspected manipulation on the part of the Revenue officials who should have dealt this case as follows: a. Soon after receipt of application in 2001 for settling Kanam, the Tahsildar should have verified whether the statutory period for filing the application was over or not. b. If not, first he should have verified whether the parties have already gained any thandapers by virtue of resurvey process with the strength of the documents in question. c. The names of the parties should have been verified with the Janmikaram Settlement Register prescribed in DBP 79/12 7 Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 to ascertain the tenancy on the appointed date. Since the file was closed as K Dis there is no possibility of tracing out the file which could have the extract of the register. d. The order K.Dis/2323/2001 dated 29.09.2001 issued by Special Tahsildar, Kanam Tenancy (Abolition), Ernakulam shows his disrespect over the sanctity of the survey numbers as the order says 19.30 ares from 295/3 & 4, without specifying the extents in each survey numbers. e. Even now the land in question is a compact block, but how the Addl. Tahsildar, Kunnathunad on 26.07.2002 made sub divisions without any survey based solely on the document number 3627/94 dated 05.08.1994 and order K.Dis/2373/2001 of Kanam Settlement Tahsildar is a mystery. f. None of the mother deeds showed old survey number: 140/5-A which corresponds to Resy No.295/4. g. Through a single order the following extends were granted to the parties wrongly invoking Transfer of Registry Rules: a. Prabhakaran Nair - 1.21 ares from resurvey number 295/3 and 3.24 ares from resurvey number 295/4. b. Krishnan Kutty - 1.62 ares from resurvey number 295/3 and 2.02 ares from resurvey number 295/4. c. Ramachandran - 2.02 ares from resurvey number 295/3 and 2.43 ares from resurvey number 295/4. d. Ammini Amma - 40.00 ares from resurvey number 295/13 [in the document 3627/1994 it was written as 295/15] and 5.45 ares from resurvey number 295/3. 7. This otherwise means out of the total extent granted as Kanam settlement only 18.80 ares out of 19.30 ares has been mutated in the names of four persons. 0.50 ares is not yet mutated for unknown reasons. Further as per the deposition of the Devaswom official [Copy enclosed] no DBP 79/12 8 hearing was granted to the officials of the Cochin Devaswom Board - Jenmi, before deciding the case by the Kanam Settlement Tahsildar is a serious issue. The action of Kanam Special Tahsildar and Additional Tahsildar are in excess of the powers conferred upon them by relevant statutes. The Village Officials who prepared the A Form are also believed to be involved in this misdeed. Appropriate action will be taken against them after due process of detailed enquiry and survey of the entire vacant land in and around the Kottaram Temple. b. The Cochin Devaswom Board may be directed to put up barbed wire fence around the properties lying as vacant land in and around the temple to curb further encroachments. The statement may please be treated as an interim statement. A detailed statement in this matter will be submitted as and when directed by this Honourable Court.” After the statement was filed on record, this Court had passed an order on 17.10.2012, wherein it was recorded as under: “Learned Counsel for the sixth respondent submits that he is yet to receive a copy of the statement filed on behalf of the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Court Officer will ascertain whether a copy of that is provided to him by the learned Government Pleader, today itself. 2. We have gone through the report on behalf of the Land Revenue Commissioner. Less said the better! If the Revenue officials, including Tahsildars and Additional Tahsildars, are acting in the manner as disclosed in the report, the legendary and beholden Parasurama may have to come again to make Kerala available for the people of this “God's Own Country”. Going by the report, the Land Revenue Commissioner's office is justified in pointing out that the officials involved do not even show the minimum caution and care expected from persons holding such posts. 3. Many provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act with supporting provisions, DBP 79/12 9 enabling drawing of appropriate inferences and presumptions, stare at the facts of the case in hand. 4. Even by the Land Revenue Commissioner's report, a temple which had a large extent of land is now shown to have only a small extent in its name. The Land Revenue Commissioner has rightly attributed the dwindling of the extent of land to the irrational single word orders issued by statutory authorities invoking the Transfer of Registry Rules. 5. Devaswom lands vest in the respective deities. They are to be protected as if they belong to minors. Deities' lands covered by fraudulent exercises by the Revenue officials and /or private persons can be erased as worthless. Fraud would not be countenanced in such matters. We make these observations without expressing anything in that regard as of now, on the facts of the case in hand, since the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, says that his client intends to decide as to whether he is to object to the report of the Land Revenue Commissioner. But, we are clear in our mind that the Land Revenue Commissioner's report needs to be considered further. We need to be told at the next date of hearing as to whether the Department concerned would proceed to hand over the case to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau or to other appropriate agency for enquiry or investigation into the case from all probable angles, since we see a clear case of abuse of power, corruption, dereliction of duty and failure to follow directions of law. We say all these only on the basis of the report of the Land Revenue Commissioner. If what the Land Revenue Commissioner has stated has happened, it is high time that the wrong doers are required to meet the course of justice. Post on 08-11-2012.” At the time when the above order was issued, it was also brought to the notice of this Court that the fourth respondent herein, namely Sri.K.B.Rajan, who is one of the persons DBP 79/12 10 suspected to be in possession of the Devaswom properties, had filed a suit numbered as O.S.No.13/2013 before the Sub Court, Perumbavoor, claiming title over the extent of land in his possession and this Court stayed all further proceedings in that suit so as not to create any conflict or confusion regarding the land conservancy proceedings already initiated against him. 8. The narration of facts above are with respect to the state of affairs as early as in the year 2014. It is distressing that nothing has moved forward and that proceedings have remained exactly where it was at the time when the last order was issued. 9. Today, when this matter was taken up, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.R.D.Shenoy, assisted by Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, appearing for the additional fourth respondent submits that the land conservancy proceedings against the fourth respondent was, in fact, initiated even before this DBP was registered. He points out that against the order issued by the Special Tahsildar under the Land Conservancy Act, the fourth respondent had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, DBP 79/12 11 Muvattupuzha by filing a statutory appeal, which has culminated in Annexure A2 order dated 08.06.2000. The learned Senior Counsel tells us that, after analysing the entire factual factors involved with respect to the fourth respondent's ownership and possession of certain lands, the RDO has remanded the matter to the Kunnathunadu Tahsildar for consideration of the land conservancy proceedings afresh. This fact was also noticed by this Court and in the order dated 27.10.2013, it was directed that this report of the RDO will also be transmitted to the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board so as to enable him to pursue, continue and complete the land conservancy proceedings at the earliest. 10. With the aforesaid being in our mind, we are considering whether it will be now necessary to keep this DBP pending. We are certainly of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping this petition pending before this Court continually because we are firm in our opinion that all further proceedings will have to be completed by the statutory authorities, acting in terms of the relevant Statutes, in a time bound manner. It will serve no purpose in keeping this DBP DBP 79/12 12 pending and to allow the authorities to sleep over the matter, as if these issues are not relevant any more. 11. Reminding the concerned authorities of the imperative nature of their duties and unexpendable requirement of completing these proceedings within a time frame, we dispose of this DBP in the following lines: i. The Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board, is directed to initiate action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 with respect to all properties of the Devaswom, as would be brought under its fold in view of Sections 62A and 62B of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. Such action will have to be initiated by the Special Tahsildar without any delay, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after ascertaining the nature of ownership of the lands from the Settlement Registers and to commence action against those persons, who are found to be in possession of such lands, which are covered by the aforesaid two sections. ii. The land conservancy proceedings against the fourth respondent, namely L.C.No.11/1997, which now stands DBP 79/12 13 remanded through the orders of the RDO, Muvattupuzha, namely Annexure A2 and presently pending before the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board, shall be continued by the said officer and concluded in terms of law. We are aware that the learned Senior Counsel has a specific contention on this issue that the jurisdictional facts, which alone can enable the said officer to start proceedings and to complete it, will have to be first determined and decided upon by the said authority. We are not proceeding to decide this issue affirmatively since we are of the view that going by Sections 11 and 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, it will always be open to the fourth respondent to raise all such contentions before the competent authority, who will then be enjoined, in terms of the said Act, to consider it and to deal with the same appropriately. The proceedings shall be completed by the Special Tahsildar within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, adverting to the interim order of this Court, whereby Annexure A2 report of the RDO has been directed to be placed before the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board. DBP 79/12 14 iii. The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau will ensure that the vigilance case registered as VE01/ 2014/CRE is taken to its logical conclusion after a thorough inquiry and investigation and that cases are charged in terms of law, if required. This process shall be completed by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv. In the meanwhile, pending consideration of the land conservancy case by the Special Tahsildar against the fourth respondent, interim order of this Court dated 04.10.2013 staying all further proceedings in O.S.No.13/2013 pending before the Sub Court, Perumbavoor will stand modified to the extent that the trial of the said case shall be deferred for a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, but that the defendants therein will be obligated to complete the pleadings so as to make the suit ready for trial, in terms of law. v. Once the above process is complete, the concerned authority shall file suitable reports before the Registrar of this Court, who shall thereafter place the same in the form of a DBP 79/12 15 DBP to be numbered, along with Judge's Papers of this DBP, so as to enable this Court to consider the next course of action, if it is so required. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv