High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of
Juba riya and others v GAIL (India) Ltd and others; Muhammed Kutty Musliyar and others v GAIL (India) Ltd and others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C). Nos. 37752/2018 & 36531/2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. Muhamed Mustaque
- Judgment Date
- 2019-04-01
- Court Decision / Holding
- This writ petition is disposed of as above. The court did not grant relief to the petitioners, held that publication and the statutory framework justify proceeding with laying pipelines, and emphasized that Section 7’s proviso protects residential use but does not prohibit pipeline work in non-residential areas, provided depths and other safeguards are observed. The petitions are dismissed with no further relief.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions disposed of
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- JUBAIRIYA
- SIDDIQUE
- SUBAIDA
- PATHUMMA
- MUHAMMED KUTTY MUSLIYAR
- SUBAIR A.K.
- AYTHIYAMAN
- AYISHA
- YUSOOF
Respondents
- GAIL (INDIA) LTD.
- DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (RCU), GAIL (INDIA) LTD.
- UNION OF INDIA
- DISTRICT COLLECTOR
- VILLAGE OFFICER, PONMALA
- TAHSILDAR, TIRUR TALUK
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K. M. Firoz
- • E. C. Ahamed Fazil
- • M. Shajna
- • P. C. Muhammed Noushiq
Counsels for Respondents
- • S. Mohammed Al Rafi
- • Ajith Krishnan
- • K. Jayesh Mohankumar
- • CG Preetha
- • K. V. Sohan
Case Synopsis & Summary
These connected writ petitions challenge the government’s plan to lay gas pipelines through petitioners’ lands under the Petroleum Mineral Pipelines Act, 1962. The petitions question the validity of the Section 3 notification issued on 21 June 2011 and the subsequent steps under the Act and the 1963 Rules. The petitioners contend that they were not properly served and that the 21-day objection period under Section 5 was not observed; they also argue that Section 7 protects residential structures and lands appurtenant to dwellings, and that the proposed alignment would disturb their dwelling or reduce enjoyment of their land. The court examines whether the statute requires personal service of notice or mere publication suffices, and whether objections could be entertained after the deadline. Relying on Rule 8 of the 1963 Rules, and on the decision in Francis K.M. v. Union of India, the court holds that the notification under Section 3 was widely publicised and that the 21-day window and the hearing obligations were not mandatory for every objector if objections were not raised timely. The court further interprets Section 7, explaining that the proviso prohibits pipelines only in land used for residential purposes immediately before notification, not a blanket bar across the entire property. In the result, the court disposes of the petitions without granting the petitioners relief, noting that pipelines will be laid at depths likely to avoid disturbance and that no residential structure will be disturbed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 - Section 3Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 - Section 5Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right to User in Land) Act, 1962 - Section 6Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right to User in Land) Act, 1962 - Section 7Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right to User in Land) Rules, 1963 - Rule 8
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Proviso to Section 7 of the Act protects residential use of land; pipeline cannot be laid under land used for residential purposes immediately before notification; interpretation as explained in Francis K.M. v. Union of India (2017) 3 KLT 808
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners challenged the Section 3 notification (dated 21.06.2011) and the ensuing steps under the Petroleum Mineral Pipelines Act, 1962, alleging non-compliance with the 21-day objection window under Section 5 and improper service of notices. They argued alternate alignments and raised that the project would violate Section 7 by affecting dwelling land. They contend that notices were not properly served (as per Ext.R1(A)) and that hearing was not provided within the statutory window. They also cite that a large chunk of their land is included to facilitate the project, and object to the procedural process demanding compliance with Section 7 and the Rules.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents maintain that Section 3 notifications were widely publicised and that publication sufficed for the purposes of Section 5; personal service is not mandatory under Section 3, though Rule 8 requires service; objections raised by petitioners were considered and, where appropriate, overruled; the pipelines will be laid at depth exceeding one metre, and there is no indisputable disturbance to residential structures; the court should refrain from interference and allow the statutory process to proceed.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Francis K.M. v. Union of India and Others | 2017 3 KLT 808 | Positive | Used to interpret the scope of Section 7; the proviso prohibiting pipelines under land used for residential purposes immediately before notification is applied to protect residential use. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Juba riya and others v GAIL (India) Ltd and others; Muhammed Kutty Musliyar and others v GAIL (India) Ltd and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941**
**WP(C).No. 37752 of 2018**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|||**JUBAIRIYA,**|
|---|---|---|---|
||||**AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.SIDIQUE,**|
||||**AZHUVALAPPIL (H), CHENGOTTUR POST,**|
||||**CHOONOOR, PONMALA, MALAPPURAM - 676 503.**|
|**2**|||**SIDDIQUE,**|
||||**AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED,**|
||||**AZHUVALAPPIL (H), CHENGOTTUR POST,**|
||||**CHOONOOR, PONMALA, MALAPPURAM - 676 503.**|
|**3**|||**SUBAIDA,**|
||||**AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.SAIDALAVI,**|
||||**PULIMADAKKAL HOUSE, KOORIYAD, KOTTAKKAL,**|
||||**INDIANUR POST, MALAPPURAM - 676 503.**|
|**4**|||**PATHUMMA,**|
||||**AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.IBRAHIM,**|
||||**CHERAPURATH HOUSE, CHENGOTTUR POST,**|
||||**CHOONOOR, PONMALA, MALAPPURAM - 676 503.**|
||||**BY ADVS.**|
||||**SRI.K.M.FIROZ**|
||||**SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL**|
||||**SMT.M.SHAJNA**|
||||**SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ**|
|**ENTS**||||
|||||
|**1**|||**GAIL (INDIA) LTD.,**|
||||**(GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED),**|
||||**KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, GAIL - HMT COLONY ROAD,**|
||||**HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA-683 503,**|
||||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**|
|**2**|||**DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (RCU),**|
||||**GAIL (INDIA) LTD., (GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED)**|
||||**RGMC BUILDING, KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, GAIL -HMT COLONY**|
||||**ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY,**|
||||**KOCHI, KERALA - 683503.**|
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 2**
**3 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.**
**4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA- 676 505. 5 VILLAGE OFFICER, PONMALA VILLAGE, PONMALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 503. 6 TAHSILDAR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 101.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI, SC, GAIL INDIA LIMITED SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR CG PREETHA CGC,K.V SOHAN STATE ATTORNEY**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).36531/2018 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 3**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
**MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941**
**WP(C).No. 36531 of 2018**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**MUHAMMED KUTTY MUSLIYAR,**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN,**|
||**URUNNIKULAM (H), MUNDAMBRA, NEAR GOVT.ITI AREACODE,**|
||**UGRAPURAM.P.O., AREACODE, MALAPPURAM - 673 639.**|
|**2**|**SUBAIR A.K.,**|
||**S/O AHMED KUTTYMAN, ANNAKARA KUNDIL (H),**|
||**NEAR GOVT. ITI AREACODE, UGRAPURAM.P.O.,**|
||**AREACODE, MALAPPURAM - 673 639.**|
|**3**|**AYTHIYAMAN,**|
||**S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, CHEROOTH (H),**|
||**NEAR GOVT. ITI AREACODE, UGRAPURAM.P.O.,**|
||**AREACODE, MALAPPURAM - 673 639.**|
|**4**|**AYISHA,**|
||**AGED 42 YEARS, D/O AHAMMED, CHEROOTH (H),**|
||**NEAR GOVT. ITI AREACODE, UGRAPURAM.P.O., A**|
||**REACODE, MALAPPURAM - 673 639.**|
|**5**|**YUSOOF,**|
||**AGED 52 YEARS, CHEROOTH (H),**|
||**NEAR GOVT. ITI AREACODE, UGRAPURAM.P.O.,**|
||**AREACODE, MALAPPURAM - 673 639.**|
**BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**1 GAIL (INDIA) LTD., KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, GAIL - HMT COLONY ROAD, HMT COLONY.P.O., KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA-683 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 4**
**2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY(RCU), GAIL (INDIA) LTD., RGMC BUILDING, KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, GAIL-HMT COLONY ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA-683503.**
- **3 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.**
- **4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA - 676505.**
- **5 VILLAGE OFFICER, AREACODE VILLAGE, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 639.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED SRI.A.K.HARIDAS SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI**
**CG PREETHA CGC,K.V SOHAN STATE ATTORNEY**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).37752/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 5**
## **JUDGMENT**
**These writ petitions are filed challenging drawing of laying gas pipelines through the petitioners property invoking provisions under the Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short, the “Act”).**
**2. The petitioners' case is that the respondents shall not proceed with the steps for laying pipelines without following the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid Act. Apart from that, the petitioners point out the violation of the statutory provisions of the above Act. The notification for laying pipelines was issued under Section 3 of the Act on 21.06.2011. The petitioners' land also forming part of the land referred in notification. It appears that the larger portion of the land held by the petitioners and others were shown in the notification. According to the petitioners, they**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 6**
**were not served with any notice soliciting objections. The petitioners also have a case that they are owners of small extent of land and they have constructed residential building in it and therefore, laying down the pipelines is in violation of Section 7 of the aforesaid Act. The petitioners points out alternative route for laying the pipelines. The notification was issued on 21.06.2011. But the notices were issued to the petitioners only on 24.10.2011. As seen from Ext.R1 (a), notices were acknowledged. However, the petitioners dispute receipt of notices. The respondents in the counter affidavit stated that only the 1[st] petitioner in W.P.(c)No.36531/2018 alone had raised objections and that was considered and the objections were overed. Under Section 5 of the Act it is mandatory to provide hearing to the persons, who were interested in the land within 21 days from the date of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. As seen from Section 3**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 7**
**of the Act, there is no mandate of personal service of notice; only it refers to the publication of a notification under Section 3. The notice has been widely published in the newspaper and at offices of the Village Office and Panchayat. However, the Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 (for short, the “Rule”), it is stipulated that contents of the notification under Section 3 shall be serve personally in the mode prescribed under Rule 8. Rule 8 stipulates that any notice or order shall be served by delivering or tendering a copy of such notice to the person for whom it is intended or registered by post. In this case the respondents have chosen to serve notice personally to the parties concerned.**
**3. It is seen from Ext.R1(a) produced in W.P.(c) No.36531/2018 it was served on the 5[th] petitioner. Notice as referred under the Rule 8 only states about serving notice on person or on**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 8**
**adult member of the family. It is to be noted that a publication was taken out in the newspaper. It was also affixed in conspicuous places of Village offices and Panchayats. In such circumstances, one cannot pretend ignorance as to the proposed laying of the pipelines. The maximum time in order to raise an objection is 21 days under Section 5 of the Act. The first occasion for them to raise such an objection is pursuant to the notification. Having not done so, this Court cannot entertain such objections through these writ petitions. Further, objections raised by the 1[st] petitioner in W.P (c) No.36531/2018 was also considered and passed orders. Any way, it is not for this Court to take up this matter in regard to the objections.**
**4. Next argument is based on Section 7. Section 7 stipulates that no pipelines shall be laid under any land on which there stands any permanent structure which was in existence immediately before the notification or on any**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 9**
**land which is appurtenant to a dwelling house and also any land at a depth which is less than one metre from the surface. This Court had an occasion to consider the purport and scope of Section 7 in Francis K.M. v. Union of India and Others [2017 3 KLT 808]. It is appropriate to refer para 12 of the above judgment, which reads as follows:-**
“12. I am afraid, on a careful reading of S.7, that the contentions of the petitioner cannot endure and cannot be found to have forensic sustenance. This is because the proviso to S.7 mandates that no pipeline shall be laid under any land which was used for residential purpose immediately before the notification under S.3(1) of the Act. It is, therefore, perspicuous that what the Statute provides is that the pipeline shall not be laid to disturb the residential user of the property. It does not mean in any manner that the entire property will have to be exempted and that the pipeline cannot be laid even through areas which is not being used for residential purposes. In the case at hand, even the petitioner admits that the area which is now identified by respondents 2 and 3 for laying of the pipeline is not the area where the residential house is situated. He does not have a case that by the acquisition
## **W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 10**
of user of this area, the enjoyment of the residence or its appurtenant facilities would in any manner be curtailed or diminished. That being so, I am certain that the contentions of the petitioner based on S.7 of the Act would be of no help to him.”
**5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners would not be disturbed on account of laying the pipelines. It is further submitted that the pipelines will be laid in a depth of more than one metre. The said submission is recorded.**
**In such circumstances, there is no scope of apprehension that residential house will be disturbed. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Fransis case (supra), the purport of Section 7 is only with an intention to protect the use of residential house. It does not say that any area of the house cannot be used for laying the pipelines. If the petitioners are of the view that the residential building will be affected, they still have remedy by pointing out the violation. The pipelines are yet to be laid down. In such circumstances, I find there is no reason to**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 11**
**interfere with the matter.**
**This writ petition is disposed of as above.**
```
Sd/-
```
**A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
**JUDGE**
YKB
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 12**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37752/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE**|
|---|---|
||**GAZETTE NOTIFICATION SO 1429(E) DATED**|
||**21.06.2011 IN RESPECT BLOCK NO.41 OF**|
||**PONMALA VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF**|
||**PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS UNDER SECTION 3**|
||**OF THE PETROLEUM MINERAL PIPELINES**|
||**(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT TO USER IN LAND) ACT,**|
||**1962.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE**|
||**GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.05.2014 IN**|
||**RESPECT OF BLOCK NO.41 OF PONMALA VILLAGE**|
||**ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND**|
||**NATURAL GAS UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE**|
||**PETROLEUM MINERAL PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF**|
||**RIGHT TO USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF 4 PHOTOS OF THE PETITIONER'S**|
||**PROPERTIES.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED DATED**|
||**08.11.2017 BY THIRD PETITIONER BEFORE THE**|
||**STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED**|
||**07.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT**|
||**COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.**|
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED**|
||**07.02.2018 ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF**|
||**POLICE, MALAPPURAM.**|
|**EXHIBIT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT**|
||**NO.KL10041905983/2018 DATED 12.11.2018**|
||**ISSUED BY THE PONMALA VILLAGE OFFICER.**|
|**EXHIBIT P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT**|
||**NO.KL10041905984/2018 DATED 12.11.2018**|
||**ISSUED BY THE PONMALA VILLAGE OFFICER.**|
|**EXHIBIT P10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE LEARNED**|
||**ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN W.P.(C) No.27435**|
||**OF 2017.**|
|**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN**|
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 13**
**SUPRABHATHAM NEWS PAPER DATED 19.01.2019. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF TEH NEWS PUBLISHED IN DECCAN CHRONICLE DATED 28.06.2014 TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE HTTPS://WWW.DECCANCHRONICLE.COM/140628/NATI - - - - ON CURRENT AFFAIRS/ARTICLE/15 CHARRED DEATH-GAIL-PIPLINE-BLAST. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN ONE INDIA NEWS DATED 27.06.2014 TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE - HTTPS://WWW.ONEINDIA.COM/FEATURE/GAIL EXPLOSION-NO-LESSONS-LEARNT-FROM-PAST1473012.HTML EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OT 3TD PETITIONER AND OTHER OWNERS OF SY.NO.383/5 IN PONMALA VILLAGE. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.926/2018 DATED 22.01.18 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PONAMALA. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGHMENT MAP IN RELATION TO SY.NO.383/5 OF PONMALA VILLAGE. EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE EXT.P8 COMMISISON REPORT IN W.P. © 27435/2017.**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 14**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36531/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION SO 1429(E) DATED 21.6.2011 INRESPECT OF BLOCK NO.32 OF AREAKODE VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE PETROLEUM MINERAL PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT 1962**
**EXHIBIT P1 A A TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT MAP IN RESURVEY NO/.55/3 OF FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.5.2014 IN RESPECT OF BLOCK NO.32 OF AREAKODE VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE PETROLEUM MINERAL PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT 1962**
**EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF PHOTO OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES EXHIBIT P3 A A TRUE COPY OF PHOTO OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES EXHIBIT P3 B A TRUE COPY OF PHOTO OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES EXHIBIT P3 C A TRUE COPY OF PHOTO OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES EXHIBIT P3 D A TRUE COPY OF PHOTO OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES EXHIBIT P3 E A TRUE COPY OF PHOTO OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS JOINTLY RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COVERING LETTER DATED 13.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM**
**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018 15**
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT**||
|---|---|---|
||**NO.KL10010203685/2018 DATED 16/7/2018**||
||**ISSUED BY THE AREACODE VILLAGE OFFICER**||
|**EXHIBIT P6 A**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE**||
||**DATED 24.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AREACODE**||
||**VILLAGE OFFICER**||
|**EXHIBIT P6 B**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE**||
||**DATED 24.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AREACODE**||
||**VILLAGE OFFICER**||
|**EXHIBIT P6 C**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE**||
||**DATED 5.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AREACODE**||
||**VILLAGE OFFICER**||
|**EXHIBIT P6 D**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0177405**||
||**DATED 14.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE AREACODE**||
||**VILLAGE OFFICER**||
|**EXHIBIT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD OF 1ST**||
||**PETITIONER'S SON**||
|**EXHIBIT P7 A**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD OF 1ST**||
||**PETITIONER'S SON WIFE'S**||
|**EXHIBIT P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE LEARNED**||
||**ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN W.P.(C) No.27435**||
||**OF 2017.**||
|**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN**||
||**SUPRABHATHAM NEWS PAPER DATED 19.01.2019.**||
|**EXHIBIT P9(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE READABLE REPORT IN**||
||**SUPRABHATHAM NEWS PAPER DATED 19.01.2019.**||
|**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF TEH NEWS PUBLISHED IN DECCAN**||
||**CHRONICLE DATED 28.06.2014 TAKEN FROM THE**||
||**WEBSITE**||
||**HTTPS://WWW.DECCANCHRONICLE.COM/140628/NATI**||
||**ON-CURRENT-AFFAIRS/ARTICLE/15-CHARRED-**||
||**DEATH-GAIL-PIPLINE-BLAST**<br>**.**||
|**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN ONE**||
||**INDIA NEWS DATED 27.06.2014 TAKEN FROM**|**THE**|
||**WEBSITE**||
||**HTTPS://WWW.ONEINDIA.COM/FEATURE/GAIL-**||
||**EXPLOSION-NO-LESSONS-LEARNT-FROM-PAST-**||
||**1473012.HTML**||
|**EXHIBIT R1(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE**|**WIRT**|
||**PETITIONERS BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY**||
|**W.P(c)Nos.37752/2018&36531/2018**|**16**|
|---|---|
|**EXHIBIT R1(B)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED**|
||**22.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**|
||**ARECODE**|
|**EXHIBIT R1(C)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGHMENT MAP IN RELATION**|
||**TO SY.NO.55/5 OF ARECODE VILLAGE.**|
|**EXHIBIT R1(D)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY**|
||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE EXT.P8**|
||**COMMISISON REPORT IN W.P. © 27435/2017.**|
**//TRUE COPY//**
**==> picture [67 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
PA TO JUDGE<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>
YKB