Ithamma Xavier v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; The District Collector, Ernakulam; The Special Tahsildar (LA), Kochi Metro Rail Ltd.; Kochi Metro Rail Limited; The Commissioner of Income Tax

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ITHAMMA XAVIER, AGED 83 YEARS, PARAKKAL HOUSE, DESOM P. O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 102.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT**| |---|---| ||**REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.**| |**3**|**THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),**| ||**NO.2, KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT,**| ||**KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.**| |**4**|**THE KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED,**| ||**JLN STADIUM METRO STATION, BANERJI ROAD,**| ||**KALOOR - 682 017,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY.**| |**5**|**THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,**| ||**CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD,**| ||**ERNAKULAM - 682 018.**| ||**R1 to R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT MABLE C KURIAN**| ||**R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)**| ||**R4 BY SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, KOCHI METRO RAIL**| ||**LTD.**| ||**R5 BY CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** In the year 2014, the Government of Kerala accorded sanction to the District Collector, Ernakulam, to effect direct purchase of land for Kochi Metro Rail Ltd. (‘KMRL’ for the sake of brevity). Pursuant to the same, Ext.P2 notice was issued by the Government wherein it is stated that for the land which were to be acquired for the project, land value is to be fixed through negotiation with the land owners by the District Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) after securing approval of the proposed land value by the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) and after entering into an agreement with the land owners that future compensation, if any, eligible to them would be paid only after framing rules under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). 2. Property having an extent of 6.09 Ares in Sy. No.83/2016 of Aluva West Village owned by the petitioner was required for the purpose of the Metro Rail Project pursuant to Ext.P2. By Ext.P3 proceedings dated 13.8.2014, the 3rd respondent tentatively fixed the land value of the property at Rs.3,87,32,392.05/at the rate of Rs.61,77,415/- per Are. The value of the structure was fixed at Rs.7,30,797/-. The amount so arrived at was approximately 80% of the compensation fixed by the 3rd respondent and approved by the DLPC and SLEC. On 21.8.2014, Ext.P4 agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **3** District Collector wherein, among other clauses, it is specifically mentioned that the Relief and Rehabilitation Package, if applicable and as declared by the Government of Kerala under Act 30 of 2013 with regard to the purchase of the land described to the schedule would be implemented. As per the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed to execute the sale deed on the District Collector paying the balance 20% of the sale consideration to the land owner. It is the case of the petitioner that there was an understanding between the parties that the sale deed would conform to the terms of the agreement executed earlier and would contain reference to the entitlement of the petitioner to the Relief and Rehabilitation Package under Act 30 of 2013. The petitioner states that she would be entitled to exemption from payment of Income Tax only if the amount received by way of compensation is as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in view of Section 96 of the said Act and refers to Exts.P6 and P8 circulars to substantiate the said fact. 3. On 20.10.2018, a letter was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent calling upon her to accept the balance consideration and execute the document. In response, the petitioner issued Ext.P10 letter informing of her willingness to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement dated 21.8.2014 and under the norms of Act 30 of 2013. On 9.11.2018, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P13 letter calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents referred to therein for the purpose of completion of the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 agreement for sale. In response, the petitioner is stated to have issued Ext.P14 letter attaching the documents which were called for. Since **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **4** there was no response, the petitioner issued Ext.P15 letter dated 29.1.2019. In response, Ext.P16 letter dated 1.2.2019 was forwarded along with Ext.P17 draft sale deed. It is the case of the petitioner that the draft sale deed forwarded to the petitioner did not conform to the terms of the agreement of sale and did not contain any reference to the entitlement of the petitioner to seek relief under Act 30 of 2013. In response, the petitioner is stated to have issued Ext.P18 letter dated 22.2.2019 pointing out that the sale deed does not conform to Ext.P4 agreement for sale and does not contain reference to Act 30 of 2013. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent by Ext.P19 letter dated 15.3.2019 informed the petitioner in unequivocal terms that no modifications can be incorporated to the draft sale deed due to the insistence made by the KMRL. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P22 letter wherein it is stated that the land owned by the petitioner was taken possession of under the Direct Land Purchase Scheme and that she having accepted 80% of the compensation amount, her reluctance to execute the sale deed after accepting the balance compensation of 20% is a clear violation of clause (6) of Ext.P4. As an ultimatum, the petitioner was directed to receive the balance compensation amount of 20% on or before 27.6.2019 and register the property in favour of the 4th respondent. It was further stated that the Government would not be liable for any further delay and for payment of interest on the balance payable compensation of 20% of the total amount from and after 27.6.2019. According to the petitioner, this is a clear admission on the part of the Government to pay interest on the balance 20% of **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **5** the compensation upto 27.6.2019 from the date of taking of possession of the property, i.e., on 21.8.2014 on which day, Ext.P4 agreement was executed. It is stated that under Section 80 of Act 30 of 2013, the Collector is required to pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession till the date of payment or deposit of the amount. It is stated that on 8.7.2019, Ext.P25 letter was forwarded to the District Collector appending Ext.P21 and P22 and seeking expeditious action. In response, the petitioner was served with Ext.P23 letter dated 3.10.2019 calling upon her to appear before the respondent. Though as per her authorisation, her son appeared before the respondents 2 and 3, no action was taken. Finally, on 13.7.2020, Ext.P29 letter was issued appending a copy of the draft sale deed. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P28 draft sale deed does not contain any reference to Act 30 of 2013 or about the entitlement of the petitioner to any of the benefits under the Act. It is in the afore background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) Declare that the 2nd respondent is bound in law to prepare a sale deed strictly in terms of Ext.P4 agreement in respect of the petitioner’s property having an extent of 6.27 Ares in town block No.83, RS.No.16 of Aluva West Village to be got signed by the petitioner without any further delay. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to prepare a sale deed strictly in terms of Ext.P4 agreement in respect of the petitioner’s property having an extent of 6.27 Ares in town block No.83, RS No.16 of Aluva West Village to be got signed by the petitioner and complete the formalities of registration of the same **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **6** ## without any further delay. iii) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to immediately pay to the petitioner the balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.78,92,638/- together with interest on the same at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.08.2014 to 20.08.2015 and at the rate of 15% per annum from 21.08.2015 to the date of actual payment or deposit for payment to the petitioner of the said amount. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the Government of Kerala accorded sanction for direct purchase of land for Kochi Metro Rail at the rate approved by the SLEC after entering into agreement with the land owner. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notice to the land owners and invited them for negotiation. Most of the land owners including the petitioner came forward to sell their property at the sale price determined by the DLPC. The DLPC determined the sale price by taking into account the market value of the land prevailing in the locality at that time and reasonable solatium for the goodwill for delivering the land in advance for the project. The value of improvement/ structures without depreciation were also calculated in addition to the negotiated price of the land. On the land owner agreeing to the DLPC rate, the sale price was paid immediately on executing an agreement with the District Collector. In the case on hand, the sale price was fixed at Rs.25 lakh per cent and Ext.P4 agreement was executed. The land was surrendered on 21.8.2014 and 80% of the compensation amount was duly paid. According to the respondent, the provisions of Act 30 of 2013, cannot be incorporated in the sale deed as it was a negotiated **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **7** purchase. Furthermore, as the negotiation took place and 80% of the compensation amount was paid after the Act had come into force, the petitioner has waived the provisions of the Act and has agreed to sell the property on Direct Purchase Scheme. It is contended that the concern of the petitioner with regard to exemption from Income Tax has no legs to stand in the light of Ext.P8 circular and also Ext.P21 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. It is further stated that there was no clause in the agreement that compensation would be paid as per Act 30 of 2013 and in that view of the matter, there cannot be any modification to the draft sale deed. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent wherein after narrating the sequence of events leading to the acquisition, it is stated that the transaction between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is a pure sale transaction covered by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The entire negotiations, payment of advance amount and execution of sale agreement took place after the coming into force of Act 30 of 2013. The sale consideration offered to the petitioner was highly lucrative and the same was arrived at after taking into account the market value of the property. It is stated that the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 would not be applicable in the case on hand. It is further stated that even after accepting a major portion of the sale consideration, the petitioner has deliberately delayed the execution of the sale deed despite repeated requests. It is stated that in W.A.No.2174 of 2017, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the land owners like the petitioner to execute the sale deeds and to accept the balance **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **8** 20% sale consideration and thereafter seek for reference under Section 64 of the Act. It was also held in Ext.R4(a) judgment that the landowners who have executed an agreement without any specific clause reserving the right to claim compensation under Act 30 of 2013 are also eligible to claim compensation under the Act. It is stated that being aggrieved by the above judgment, the 4th respondent has preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and by Ext.R4(b) interim order dated 5.9.2019, the land owners were permitted to execute the conveyance deed upon payment of 20% amount to be paid by the 4th respondent. It is stated that respondents have prepared a standard format sale deed applicable to all cases for the sake of uniformity. However, the petitioner has refused to sign the agreement. It is stated that in Ext.P25 communication issued by the petitioner, her only grievance is that by not incorporating the provisions of Act 30 of 2013, she would be denied exemptions under Section 96 of the Act. According to the 4th respondent, in view of Ext.P21 judgment, the said apprehension has no basis. 6. A statement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for and on behalf of the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is stated that the main grievance portrayed by the petitioner is that in the absence of a reference to the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in the sale deed, the petitioner would be denied tax exemption as envisaged in the Act. It is stated that the Apex court in **Balakrishnan v. Union of India and others[1]** has held that the negotiated purchase of land on the strength of an agreement has to be recognized as a compulsory acquisition under 1 [(2017) 3 SCC 634] **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **9** Act 30 of 2013. It is further stated that by Ext.P8 circular, the Apex body in charge of the administration of direct taxes have clarified that the compensation received in respect of an award or agreement which has been exempted from the levy of income tax vide Section 96 of Act 30 of 2013 shall also not be taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even if there is no specific provision for exemption for such compensation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is stated that the compensation received by the petitioner is exempted from tax under Section 96 of the Act 30 of 2013. 7. I have heard Sri. Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned senior Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 8. The petitioner has two grievances. The first grievance being the refusal on the part of the respondents to incorporate the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in the sale deed which is to be executed and registered after receiving the balance 20% of the compensation amount. The petitioner has been insisting for the above clause in the sale deed, as she is apprehensive that the failure to incorporate the said clause would be detrimental to her and she would be deprived of the benefits under section 96 of Act 30 of 2013 and she would be denied exemption from income tax. Her second grievance is with regard to her entitlement to receive interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 21.8.2014 to 20.8.2015 and at the rate of 15% p.a. from 21.8.2015 till the date of actual payment. **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **10** 9. Insofar as her first grievance is concerned, the issue is covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in **Balakrishnan** (supra). The question in the said case was whether in a case wherein the compensation was fixed based on negotiated settlement, the claim for exemption under Section 10 (37) of Incometax Act, 1961, could be denied to the party. In the said case, the property was acquired by the Government for the purpose of development of the third phase of the Technopark. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. It was thereafter that a decision was taken for negotiated purchase. This Court had held that the transfer of possession by way of sale deed after notification under Section 4(1) will not amount to compulsory acquisition liable for tax deduction under Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act. In Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the judgment, the Apex Court had held as follows:- **8.** In our view, insofar as acquisition of the land is concerned, the same was compulsorily acquired as the entire procedure prescribed under the LA Act was followed. The settlement took place only qua the amount of the compensation which was to be received by the appellant for the land which had been acquired. It goes without saying that had steps not been taken by the Government under Sections 4 and 6 followed by award under Section 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have agreed to divest the land belonging to him to Techno Park. He was compelled to do so because of the compulsory acquisition and to avoid litigation entered into negotiations and settled the final **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **11** compensation. Merely because the compensation amount is agreed upon would not change the character of acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to the voluntary sale. It may be mentioned that this is now the procedure which is laid down even under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as per which the Collector can pass rehabilitation and resettlement award with the consent of the parties/landowners. Nonetheless, the character of acquisition remains compulsory. **9.** This Court has doubts about the correctness of the judgment in Infopark Kerala v. CIT [Infopark Kerala v. CIT, (2008) 4 KLT 782 : 2008 SCC OnLine Ker 564] . The Court in the said case took the view that since the title in the property was passed by the landowners on the strength of sale deeds executed by them, it was not a compulsory acquisition. We are not in agreement with the aforesaid view. It is clear that but for Notification under Section 4 and award under Section 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have entered into any negotiations for the compensation of the consideration which he was to receive for the said land. As far as the acquisition of the land in question is concerned, there was no consent. The appellant was put in such a condition that he knew that his land had been acquired and he cannot reiterate the same. The appellant, therefore, only wanted to salvage the situation by receiving as much compensation as possible commensurate with the market value thereof and in the process avoid the litigation so that the appellant is able to receive the compensation well in time. If for this purpose the appellant **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **12** entered into the negotiations, such negotiations would be confined to the quantum of compensation only and cannot change or alter the nature of acquisition which would remain compulsory. We, therefore, overrule the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Infopark Kerala v. CIT [Infopark Kerala v. CIT, (2008) 4 KLT 782 : 2008 SCC OnLine Ker 564]. 10. Furthermore, in the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for and on behalf of the 5th respondent it has been stated in unequivocal manner that the compensation received by the petitioner is exempted from tax under Section 96 of the Act. 11. In that view of the matter, the apprehension of the petitioner that the non incorporation of the applicability of Act 30 of 2013 in the sale deed proposed to be executed will disentitle her to the benefit of exemption from tax is misconceived. In other words, the entitlement of the petitioner to receive tax exemption is not dependent on the incorporation of the applicability of Act 30 of 2013 in the sale deed. 12. Now the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest as claimed by her. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that the possession of the land was taken over from her possession on 21.8.2014, the date of execution of Exhibit P4 agreement. In Exhibit P4, among other clauses it has been stated thus “ And Whereas the owner(s) and interested party /parties have agreed for the sale of the said land/lands hitherto **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **13** being used as…..(describe the nature of use ) Aluva Byepass (E) Station to KMRL as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. ## xxxxxxxxxxxxxx And whereas the KMRL has agreed to implement the relief and rehabilitation package if applicable and as declared by the Government of Kerala under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( hereinafter referred to as the “Act” ) with regard to the purchase of the said land/ lands described in the schedule to the agreement. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that despite having made reference to Act 30 of 2013 in the agreement executed between the parties after paying the consideration of 80% of the compensation, the respondents failed to incorporate the provisions as regards the applicability of Act 30 of 2013 in the Sale Deed which were to be executed on payment of the balance 20%. 15. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in **KochiMetro Rail Ltd. v. Shanavaz** (judgment dated 13.12.2017 in W.A.No.2158 of 2017), when faced with an identical fact scenario had held as follows: 19. Sections 26 to 30 of the new Act deal with the procedure for determining the compensation. Here, after negotiations, the parties have consensually fixed the sale consideration and entered into a transaction of sale. The sale is yet to be completed, though. On the strength of agreement, the Company paid substantial consideration and possessed the **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **14** lands. The project has been completed, too. 20. Under these circumstances, it serves the interest of both the parties if we reckon the sale consideration under the agreements of sale as the amount awarded in the first instance by the primary authority or the Land Acquisition Authority. Therefore, the sale consideration must be the deemed award for the landowners to seek enhancement under section 64 of the new Act. 21. That accepted, it is open for the landowners to apply to the District Collector, who, in turn, will act on the landowners’ representations: He will refer the matters to the Competent Authority under section 64 of the new Act within six weeks from today. 22. As to the interest to be awarded, we clarify that in the absence of any notification, there could be no reckoning point. So, it may be reckoned from the date the land-owners parted with the possession. We also clarify that the Competent Authority, while calculating interest on the enhanced compensation, if any, will exclude the amounts already paid to the landowners: 80% of the sale consideration. 23. Needless to observe that the landowners may as well execute registered sale deeds and receive the remaining 20% sale consideration, pending the enhancement proceedings before the Competent Authority under section 64 of the new Act. 24. Now, it is brought to our notice that in about 12 agreements of sale, the above extracted-clause concerning the enhanced compensation in terms of the new Act is absent. First, we must not forget that it is the State or its instrumentality that has entered into the contract. Second, inadvertent absence of the clause in certain agreements of similarly placed landowners should not act to their prejudice. Lest it should reek discrimination and inequity. In other **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **15** words, those landowners, too, should be treated on a par with others with the protective clause in their agreements of sale. 16. It appears that the Metro Rail has preferred Special Leave Petition No.11399 - 11407/2018 (now numbered as Civil Appeal 7182 - 7190 of 2019) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. By an interim order dated 5.9.2019, the land owners were permitted to execute the conveyance deeds upon payment of the balance 20% amount to be paid by the Kochi Metro Rail. It was further ordered that the payment of the said amount will be subject to the final outcome of the appeals. 17. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition will stand disposed of with the following directions. a) The petitioner shall execute the sale deed on acceptance of 20% of the compensation. b) It is held that no tax is payable in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on amounts paid for acquisition of land of the petitioner for the Kochi Metro Rail Project. It is ordered that there will be no tax deductible at source or otherwise on amounts paid as compensation for such land acquisition as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P21 judgment and by the Hon’ble Apex Court in **Balakrishnan** (supra). c) The sale consideration under Ext.P4 agreement for sale shall be reckoned as the amount awarded in the first instance by the primary **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **16** authority or the land acquisition authority and it shall be the deemed award for the land owners to seek enhancement under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013 as ordered by the Division Bench in **Shanavaz** (supra). If the petitioner applies to the District Collector, the said authority shall refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 64 of the new Act within a period of six weeks from 15.3.2021. Insofar as the interest to be awarded is concerned, the same shall be reckoned from the date the petitioner parted with possession of the property on executing Ext.P4. While calculating interest on the enhanced compensation, the competent authority shall exclude the 80% of the amount by way of compensation already paid to the petitioner. It is however made clear that the directions above would be subject to the result of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal 7182 - 7190 of 2019. This writ petition is disposed of. **SD/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **JUDGE** ps **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **17** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.7.2014 REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 23.7.2014.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT).NO.3085/2014/RD DATED 5.7.2014.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE NO.DPS.NO.53/14 DATED 13.8.2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.8.2014 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS).NO.485/2015/RD DATED 23.9.2015. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR VIDE NO.1193/2018 DATED 3.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.10.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.36/2016 DATED 25.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.10.2018 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE EXT.P10 LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.** **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **18** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.11.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.1.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.2.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE DEED DATED 28.1.2019 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.2.2019 COMMUNICATED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.3.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 8.4.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO.2396/2015 DATED 4.11.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.6.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.LAC.NO.137/14/LAII DATED 3.10.2019** **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **19** **FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO REPRESENT HER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 15.10.2019.** **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 8.7.2019 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 21.11.2019 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 26.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13.7.2020 ABOUT THE DRAFT SALE DEED ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.12.2020 ADDRESSED TO GEORGE XAVIER AND OTHERS BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.2085/14/RD DATED 22.05.2014. EXHIBIT R3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KMRL/PRJ/201718 DATED 13.03.2018.** **EXHIBIT R4 (a) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2020 IN WA NO 2158 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **WP(C).No.18012 OF 2020(B)** **20** **EXHIBIT R4 (b)** **COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/09/2019 IN SLP(C) NO 4577/2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.** **//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE**