Madhava Kammath v The State of Kerala and Vaikom Municipality and others; Gopalakrishnan v Vaikom Municipality and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** # **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10182 OF 2020(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MADHAVA KAMMATH, AGED 80, S/O.GOPALA KAMMATH, VISHNU VIHAR HOUSE, NEAR SALINI HEATER, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.** **BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001.** - **2 VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.** - **3 THE SECRETARY, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.** - **4 GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46, S/O.RAJAPPANACHARI, ROHINI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 SMT.SREEKALA A, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 & R3 SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON ALONG WITH SMT.KAVERY S. THAMPI, ADVOCATES FOR R4.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2020 ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.9657/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.9657 OF 2020(F)** ## **PETITIONER:** **GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 53, S/O.RAJAPPAN ACHARI, ROHINI HOUSE, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON & SMT.KAVERY S. THAMPI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, VAIKOM, MUNICIPALITY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.** - **3 THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686576.** - **5 MADHAVA KAMMATH, AGED 80, S/O.GOPALAKAMMATH, VISHNU VIHAR HOUSE, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.** **SMT. SREEKALA. A, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1, R2 & R3 SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R4 ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE FOR R5** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2020 ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.10182/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------------W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd ] day of June, 2020 ## J U D G M E N T The prayers in WP(C).No.10182/2020 are as follows: “ - _a) Declare that Sections 412, 428, 440, 441 and 563 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 are unconstitutional and void;_ - _b) Declare that Section 533 of the Kerala Municipality act, 1994 is unconstitutional and void in as much as it is, if found, inseparably connected with Sections 412, 428, 440, 441 and 563 of the Act;_ - _c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibits P4, P7 and P8 after calling for the records leading thereto;_ - _d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents to pay exemplary damages to the petitioner not less than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand); and_ - _e) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ ## 2. The prayers in WP(C).No.9657/2020 are as follows: “ - i. _Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to implement Ext P6 notice in accordance with law, by cutting and removing the trees standing in the property of the 5[th] respondent which is found to be causing immediate threat to the life of the petitioner, his family members and the residential building forthwith;_ - ii. _Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing 4[th] respondent to take immediate action on Ext.P7 complaint forthwith to mitigate the imminent danger faced by the petitioner and his family;_ - _iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to make good the loss to be sustained by the petitioner and his family members in the event any of the trees noted in Ext P6, Ext P10 and Ext P11 report falls over the petitioners residential house or his property;_ - iv. _Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take_ W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..4.. _immediate action to cut and remove the trees standing in the property of the 5[th] respondent in consideration of Ext P6, Ext P10 and Ext P11;_ - _v. Issue such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and_ - _vi. Allow this Writ Petition (Civil) with costs.”_ 3. Heard Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020 (who is R-5 in WP(C).No.9657/2020), Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).No.9657/2020 (who is also R-4 in WP(C).No.10182/2020), Sri.A.Sreekala, learned Standing Counsel for the Vaikom Municipality appearing for respondent Vaikom Municipal authorities and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State authorities in both these cases. 4. The prayers in WP(C).No.9657/2020 are essentially opposing prayers in WP(C).No.10182/2020. The petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020 essentially challenges the impugned notices at Exts.P-4, P-7 & P-8 as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020. WP(C).No.9657/2020 has been filed prior to the filing of WP(C).No.10182/2020. The prayers in WP(C).No.9657/2020 are for implementing the proceedings in W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..5.. ## Ext.P-6 therein (which is Ext.P-4 in WP(C).No.10182/2020). 5. After hearing both sides, this Court has passed a detailed common order dated 28.5.2020 in both these WP(C)s, which reads as follows: _“ Heard Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020, Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).No.9657/2020, Smt.A.Sreekala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Vaikom Municipality, and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State authorities concerned._ _2. The exhibits are described in terms of the pleadings in WP(C).No.10182/2020, as two of the orders impugned therein have not been produced in the other WP(C). The factual controversy is limited mainly to the correctness or otherwise of factual aspects dealt with in the impugned proceedings as per Ext.P-4 notice dated 6.7.2019, Ext.P-7 notice dated 9.5.2020 and Ext.P-8 notice dated 11.5.2020, all issued by the respondent Secretary of the Vaikom Municipality. Further, the Village Officer, Vaikom, has given a report dated 25.8.2019 (produced as Ext.P-10 in WP(C).No.9657/2020) and the Tahsildar, Vaikom, has submitted Ext.P-11 report dated 29.8.2019 (produced in WP(C).No.9657/2020) in this matter._ _3. Sections 412, 427 & 428 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, reads as follows:_ _—_ _**“412. Precautions in case of dangerous trees.** (1) Where any tree or any branch of a tree or the fruits of any tree deemed by the Secretary to be likely to fall and thereby endanger any person or any structure, the Secretary may, by notice, require the owner of the said tree to secure, lop or cut down the said tree or any branch thereof so as to prevent any danger therefrom._ _(2) Where immediate action is necessary, the Secretary shall before giving such notice or before the period of such notice expires cause to secure, lop or cut down the said tree or branch thereof or remove the fruits thereof or fence off a part of any street or take such other temporary measures as he deems fit to prevent danger, and the cost thereof shall be recoverable from the owner of the tree in the manner provided in section 538._ _**427. Removal of filth or noxious or wild vegetation.** — The Secretary may, by notice, require the owner or occupier of any building or land which_ W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..6.. _appears to him to be in a filthy or unwholesome state, or over-grown with any thick, noxious or wild vegetation, trees or undergrowth injurious to health or offensive to the neighbourhood, to clear, cleanse or otherwise put the land in proper state or to clear away and remove such vegetation, trees or undergrowth within twenty four hours or such longer period not exceeding forty eight hours and in such manner as may be specified in the notice._ _—_ _**428. Securing trees adjacent to house or well.** Where it appears to the Secretary that any tree or branch of any tree is likely to be a nuisance to the adjacent houses or wells or tanks, the Secretary may, by notice, require the owner of the said tree to chop, secure or cut down the said tree within such time as may be specified in the notice, which shall not exceed forty-eight hours, so as to prevent the nuisance therefrom.”_ _4. Since the petitioner raises mainly factual disputes in order to ensure that an objective factual report is made available to this Court, it is ordered in the interest of justice as follows: i. The Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department of the area concerned should immediately conduct a site inspection in the residential property of the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020, and should ascertain the factual correctness of the matters stated in the impugned proceedings at Exts.P-4, P-7 & P- 8 as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020, and the abovesaid Exts.P-10 & P-11 reports as produced in WP(C).No.9657/2020._ _ii. The learned Advocates for both the petitioners will immediately make available the mobile numbers of their respective parties to Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned senior Government Pleader, who will then intimate the same to the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department of the area concerned through the liaison official concerned, so that on the spot site inspection notice could be send by the Assistant Engineer concerned to these two parties by SMS, etc. This is to save further time as the counsel for the petitioner WP(C).No.9657/2020 has made a specific submission that the subject trees covered by the impugned proceedings are standing in extremely dangerous position, and it causes imminent threat and danger to the petitioner in WP(C).No.9657/2020, and that very recently hardly within the last one week or 10 days, there was a heavy stormy winds and rain in the_ W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..7.. ## _Vaikom area, etc._ _iii. Smt.A.Sreekala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Vaikom Municipality will ensure that legible photocopies of proceedings at Exts.P-4, P-7 & P-8 as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020, as well as Exts.P10 & P-11 reports as produced in WP(C).No.9657/2020, are made available immediately to the Secretary of the Vaikom Municipality, who in turn should communicate a copy of this order along with copies of abovesaid documents to the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department of the area concerned. Thereafter the Assistant Engineer concerned should expeditiously make an on the spot site inspection, and ascertain the factual aspects in the presence of both these parties as well as the Secretary of the Vaikom Municipality._ _iv. The Assistant Engineer concerned after examining the factual aspects in that regard will file a comprehensive report before this Court clearly stating as to whether the said trees or branches of trees as covered in the abovesaid impugned proceedings are likely to fall and endanger any person or any structure as envisaged in Sec.412(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. And also as to whether the subject property is having overgrown with anything thick noxious wild vegetation, trees, or injurious to health or offensive to neighbourhood etc as envisaged in Section 427 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and as to whether the said property is having any tree or branch of any tree which is likely to be a nuisance to the adjacent house or wells or waters as envisaged in Section 428 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994._ _v. Report in this regard should be furnished by the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department of the area concerned before this Court within one week's time, and the same shall be filed through the learned Government Pleader._ _5. The learned Government Pleader is also requested to communicate copy of this order along with copies of abovesaid documents to the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department of the area concerned through the liaison official concerned immediately._ _6. Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020 submits that necessary photographs of the trees and other vegetation if any in the subject property may also be ordered to be taken by the Assistant Engineer_ W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..8.. _concerned while conducting inspection, and that his party would make available the services of a photographer and that he would bear the entire expenses in that regard._ _7. Having regard to the said submission it is ordered that, the Assistant Engineer concerned will also ensure that photographs of the inspection site as well as that of the trees, overgrown vegetation in the subject property may also be property taken with the aid of a photographer who is made available by the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020, and those photographs may also be made available in the said report, and those photographs may also be made available by the Assistant Engineer concerned to the learned Senior Government Pleader, so that the latter in turn can make it available for the perusal of this Court._ _Hand over copy of this order to all sides including the learned Government Pleader._ _List this case on 8.6.2020 in the Admission List.”_ 6. Now the Assistant Engineer, Local Self Government Department (LSGD) of the area concerned has filed a detailed report which is the outcome of his inspection in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. Copy of the said inspection report has been produced along with the memo dated 8.6.2020 filed by the learned Government Pleader in WP(C).No.9657/2020. The learned advocates appearing in both the writ petitions have been duly served with a copy of the abovesaid inspection report of the Assistant Engineer, LSGD. The rival parties have been heard in detail. After hearing both sides as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent RDO, as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Vaikom Municipal W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..9.. authorities, this Court is of the considered view that, there is no necessity for this Court to adjudicate and resolve the various factual disputes raised by the rival parties concerned. The abovesaid inspection report has been filed by the Assistant Engineer, LSGD, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 28.5.2020. 7. The petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020 would submit that, he has placed his objections to the said inspection report by filing counter affidavit of that party in WP(C).No.9657/2020. 8. Having regard to the various submissions of the parties this Court is of the considered view that, the matter in relation to the impugned Exts.P-4, P-7 & P-8 as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020 need to be treated as notices and not as a final decision, and therefore the matter in relation to abovesaid Exts.P-4, P-7 & P-8 as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020 will have to be finalized by the competent authority of the Vaikom Municipality in the manner known to law. It is common ground of all the parties concerned that, the competent authority to finalize the proceedings in terms of Sections 412, 427 & 428 of the Kerala W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 **==> picture [24 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Municipality Act, 1994, is the Secretary of the respondent Vaikom Municipality. 9. The counsel for the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020 has raised a contention that the provisions of said Act, does not conceive of observance of principles of natural justice, and therefore those provisions should be struck down, etc. 10. This Court is not prepared to countenance the said plea of the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020. It is by now well established by a series of rulings of the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court that, where any decision to be taken by the public authority entails to impose adverse civil consequences on a party, then necessarily such affected party should be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard by such authority concerned before any such adverse proceedings are finalized in the manner known to law. Therefore, the abovesaid contention of the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020 is only to be overruled. It is ordered and declared that proceedings as per Exts.P-4, P-7 & P-8 as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020 has to be finalized by the Secretary of the respondent Vaikom Municiplity in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 412, 427 & 428 of W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..11.. the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, only after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020, who is the party who is to be affected if such proceedings are finalized against him. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed: 1. The matters in relation to impugned Exts.P-4, P-7 & P-8 notices as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020, will stand remitted to the respondent Secretary, Vaikom Municipality, for consideration and decision. 2. In that regard it is further ordered that, the Secretary, Vaikom Municipality, will take up the matters for finalization of proceedings pursuant to Exts.P-4, P-7 & P-8 as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020, and such proceedings will have to be finalized after hearing the rival parties taking due note of the contents of abovesaid inspection report submitted by the Assistant Engineer, LSGD, and also after duly taking note of the objections if any, that may be given in writing by the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020. 3. The petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020 will immediately give his objections to the matters in relation to the contents of abovesaid inspection report filed by the Assistant Engineer, LSGD, without any further delay, and such written objections along with a W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..12.. certified copy of this judgment should be produced by him before the Secretary, Vaikom Municipality, within 5 days from the date notified for receiving certified copy of this judgment. 4. Thereafter, the Secretary, Vaikom Municipality, will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020, the petitioner in WP(C).No.9657/2020 and after taking due note of the contentions of the inspection report, and the written objections if any, given against the same by the petitioner in WP(C).No.10182/2020, as well as the submissions of the petitioner in WP(C).No.9657/2020, should pass orders so as to finalize the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P-4, P-7 & P-8 notices as produced in WP(C).No.10182/2020, in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 412, 427 & 428 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, without much delay preferably within an outer time limit of 2 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 5. The respective petitioners will produce certified copies of this judgment along with copies of respective memorandum of these WP(C)s before the Secretary, Vaikom Municipality. W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..13.. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Vaikom Municipality should also produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary of Vaikom Municipality for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, both the above Writ Petitions (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..14.. ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.10182/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VM6-2145/97 DATED 29.10.97 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2000 IN O.S.8/98 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2014 IN O.S.NO.27/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.8.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 5.5.2020 IN W.P.(C) TEMP.NO.276/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.5.2020 TO EXHIBIT P7. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4(A) PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT R4(B) GOOGLE MAP OF THE AREA WHERE PETITIONERS PROPERTY IS SITUATED.** W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..15.. |**EXHIBIT R4(C)**|**CASE STATUS AS UPLOADED IN THE WEBPORTAL**| |---|---| ||**OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| ||**REGARDING R.S.A NO.1059/2018 PENDING**| ||**BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(D)**|**PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TERRACE PORTION, WELL IN**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(E)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE STANDING COUNSEL**| ||**OF THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 30.10.2019,**| ||**WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THIS RESPONDENT UNDER**| ||**THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(F)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.8.2019**| ||**PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE**| ||**OFFICER, VAIKOM TO THE TAHASILDAR, VAIKOM.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(G)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29.08.2019**| ||**ALONG WITH THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**TAHASILDAR, VAIKOM, TO THE REVENUE**| ||**DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(H)**|**PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WALL OF THIS RESPONDENT**| ||**TOWARDS THE SOUTH-EAST PORTION.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(I)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THIS PETITIONER ON 18.05.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(J)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE**| ||**MUNICIPALITY**<br>**FOR**<br>**EXT.R4(I)**<br>**DATED**| ||**18.05.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(K)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED**| ||**18.05.2020 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(L)**|**PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TREES STANDING IN THE**| ||**PROPERTY OF PETITIONER.**| W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..16.. ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.9657/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAIKOM FOR PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2014 IN O.S.NO.27/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE EXT C1(A) SKETCH ATTACHED TO THE COMMISSION REPORT SUBMITTED IN O.S.NO.27/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM DATED 16.06.2014.** **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WELL IN THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.H1- DATED 05.07.2019, ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE STANDING COUNSEL OF THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 30.10.2019, WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..17.. - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.08.2019 PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAIKOM TO THE TAHASILDAR, VAIKOM.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29.08.2019 ALONG WITH THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE TAHASILDAR, VAIKOM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.04.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOGRAPH OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.** - **EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOGRAPH OF PETITIONERS PROPERTY** - **EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WALL OF PETITIONER TOWARDS THE SOUTH-EAST PORTION** - **EXHIBIT P16 PHOTOGRAPH OF PETITIONERS PROPERTY** - **EXHIBIT P17 THE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORTS DATED 18/5/2020 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 18/5/2020 WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY FOR EXHIBIT P18.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.8.2019 AGAINST EXHIBIT P6** - **EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.M1-439/2020 DATED 2.3.2020 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20.3.2020** - **EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** W.P. © Nos. 10182 & 9657 of 2020 ..18.. **EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.5.2020 TO EXHIBIT R5(D)** **EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VM6-2145/97 DATED 29.10.97 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**