Melmont Constructions Pvt Ltd & Purva Realties Pvt Ltd v State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MAY 2021 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3381 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 M/S.MELMONT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD. NO.41/199A, PADIVATTOM NH 47 BYPASS, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SREEJITH LENINDAS.** - **2 M/S.PURVA REALTIES PVT LTD., NO.41/199A, PADIVATTOM NH 47 BYPASS, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SREEJITH LENINDAS BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE SHRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 2ND FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 2 **LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030** - **4 THE TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNING, ECHAMUKU, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD-682 030** - **5 THE SECRETARY** **THRIKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, NGO QUARTERS -MAVELIPURAM RD, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, KERALA-682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE OFFICE, NGO QUARTERS, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI, KERALA-682 021** - **7 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, THRIKAKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, KAKKANAD-682 3030** - **8 THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVE,** **MARINE DRIVE, KCHI-682 011** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.G.G.MANOJ STANDING COUNSEL** **SRI.S.SARATH PRASAD** **SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL . A.G** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.05.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6495/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MAY 2021 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 6495 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 M/S MELMONT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD NO.41/199A, PADIVATTOM NH 47 BYPASS, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SREEJITH LENINDAS.** **2 M/S PURVA REALTIES PVT LTD NO 41/199A, PADIVATTOM NH 47 BYPASS, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SREEJITH LENINDAS. BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE SHRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN SMT.NANDA SANAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 2ND FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, REVENUE COMPLEX,** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 4 **PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** - **4 THE TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNING, ECHAMUKU, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD-682 030.** - **5 THE SECRETARY, THRIKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, NGO QUARTERSMAVELIPURAM RD, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD,** **KERALA 682 030.** - **6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKALA VILLAGE OFFICE, NGO QUARTERS, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI, KERALA-682 021.** - **7 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THRIKAKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, KAKKANAD-682 030.** - **8 THE THAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVE,** **MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-682 011.** - **BY ADVS.** **SHRI.G.G.MANOJ, SC, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY SRI.S.SARATH PRASAD** **SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL . A.G** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.05.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).3381/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 5 ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **----------------------------------------------Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021** **----------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of May, 2021.** ## **J U D G M E N T** Issues arising for consideration in these matters are closely interlinked and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.3381 of 2021. 2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the issues are the following : Petitioners are real estate developers. They own lands in Vazhakkala Village within the limits of Thrikkakkara Municipality (the Municipality). A portion of the lands owned by the petitioners is shown in the revenue records Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 6 as 'Nilam' and the rest as 'Purayidom'. The lands were purchased by the petitioners for the purpose of promoting jointly a residential/commercial project prior to the implementation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 within the limits of the Thrikkakkara Panchayat, which was later upgraded as Thrikkakkara Municipality. As such, after acquiring the lands, the first petitioner applied to the Panchayat for a No Objection Certificate for the project proposed by the petitioners and on the said application, Ext.P2 certificate was issued by the then Thrikkakkara Panchayat on 23.8.2006 stating that since the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999(wrongly shown as Kerala Building Rules, 1984) have not been enforced within the limits of the Panchayat, permission of the Panchayat is not necessary for the construction proposed by the petitioners. It was, however, stated in the certificate that there shall not be any construction within three meters from the boundaries of the Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 7 adjoining public roads and that there shall be adequate drainage facilities for the building. It is stated by the petitioners that on the strength of Ext.P2 certificate, they have commenced construction of the building and completed the piling works and a portion of the columns of the building. While so, on 1.9.2008, the Village Officer issued Ext.P6 stop memo to the petitioners stating that the construction undertaken by the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU order) and therefore, they shall not proceed with the construction without obtaining orders from the competent authority under the KLU order. According to the petitioners, the lands owned by them fall under residential zone in terms of the structural plan of Central Cochin City sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act, 1108 M.E. and therefore, permission under the KLU order is not necessary for utilizing the same for constructing a building for residential Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 8 purpose. The petitioners, therefore, challenged Ext.P6 stop memo before this court in W.P.(C) No.9156 of 2010 and the said writ petition was allowed and Ext.P6 stop memo was quashed holding that KLU order is inapplicable to the area to which the Town Planning Scheme has been implemented. Ext.P11 is the judgment in the said case. It was however, made clear by this court in Ext.P11 judgment that the petitioners shall obtain building permit in terms of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules for resuming the work as the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 have been implemented within the limits of the erstwhile Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat with effect from 6.11.2006. 3. It is stated by the petitioners that though there was no impediment for the petitioners to proceed with the construction proposed by them in the light of Ext.P11 judgment after obtaining building permit from the Panchayat, with a view Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 9 to avoid further legal issues in the course of construction, they have preferred an application before the District Collector requesting orders for construction of the building in the lands which are classified in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. The said application was disposed of by the District Collector holding that if the lands owned by the petitioners are not included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act), they are at liberty to carry on the construction subject to other statutory requirements. Ext.P12 is the communication issued by the District Collector to the petitioners in this regard on 18.6.2011. It is stated by the petitioners that thereafter, they have preferred an application before the concerned Tahsildar, viz, the eighth respondent for changing the classification of the lands referred to in Ext.P12 communication. Ext.P14 is the application preferred by the petitioners in this regard. Ext.P14 Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 10 application has been rejected by the eighth respondent stating that there is no provision of law enabling him to change the classification of the lands requested for by the petitioners. 4. It is stated by the petitioners that due to unfavourable market conditions, the petitioners were unable to pursue the project for quite some time. Later, during 2018, when they decided to proceed with the project, they preferred an application under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking orders for re-assessment of the lands. Ext.P21 is the application preferred by the petitioners in this regard. According to the petitioners, since the lands owned by them as referred to in Ext.P17 notice are not included in the data bank prepared under the Act either as paddy land or wetland and since the provisions of the KLU order do not apply to such lands, in the light of the decision of this court in **Local Level Monitoring Committee Constituted under Section 5 of** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 11 **the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma,** 2015(2) KLT 516 that when the classification of the lands are changed, there has to be a fresh assessment of the lands under the Kerala Land Tax Act and appropriate additional entries need to be made in the Basic Tax Register relating to the lands, there cannot be any impediment in reclassifying the lands in the revenue records. It is also the case of the petitioners that if the project is implemented without changing the classification of the lands, there would be future legal issues which would adversely affect the smooth implementation of the project. W.P.(C) No.3381 of 2021 is instituted alleging that Ext.P21 application is not being considered by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act. The prayer in the writ petition is for a declaration that the petitioners are entitled under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 to get an Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 12 appropriate additional entry made in the Basic Tax Register showing the present tenure of the land and pay tax accordingly. 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioners preferred an application before the Municipality for building permit to resume the construction as directed in Ext.P11 judgment. On the said application, the petitioners have been issued Ext.P17 notice by the Municipality stating that the application preferred by the petitioners for building permit can be considered only if they produce either permission for utilization of the lands under the KLU order or under Section 27A of the Act. W.P.(C) No.6495 of 2021 is instituted by the petitioners later seeking a direction to the Municipality to process the application preferred by them for building permit on which Ext.P17 communication has been issued to them, without insisting compliance of Section 27A of the Act. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 13 also the learned Additional Advocate General. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out, placing reliance on Ext.P7 communication issued by the Senior Town Planner, that the lands owned by the petitioners are falling under residential zone in terms of the structural plan of Central Cochin City sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act, 1108 M.E. According to the learned counsel, the KLU order, or for that matter Section 27A of the Act does not, therefore, apply to the lands of the petitioners. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in **Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Land Revenue,** 2007 (2) KLT 850, **Antony Jayan v. State of Kerala** , 2015 (4) KLT 370 and **Shaji Chacko v. State of Kerala** , 2020 (6) KLT 606, in support of the said contention. It was also argued by the learned counsel that at any rate, in the light of Ext.P11 judgment of this court, the Municipality or for Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 14 that matter, the revenue officials cannot insist the petitioners to obtain permission under the KLU order or under Section 27A of the Act for obtaining building permit or for seeking change of classification of the lands in the revenue records. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners have in fact preferred an application before the District Collector seeking permission to put up the building proposed by them in the lands even after securing Ext.P11 judgment and the said application was disposed of by the District Collector as per Ext.P12 order granting liberty to the petitioners to put up the building proposed by them in the lands if the same are not included in the data bank either as paddy land or wetland, after obtaining building permit for the same from the local authority. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the lands of the petitioners which are classified as 'Nilam' in the revenue records are not included either as paddy land or wetland in the Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 15 data bank prepared under the Act. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that it was long thereafter that Section 27A was introduced in the Act. According to the learned counsel, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Municipality is not justified in insisting compliance of Section 27A of the Act for the purpose of processing the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners. Similarly, it was also argued by the learned counsel that in the light of Ext.P12 order of the District Collector issued as early as on 18.06.2011, granting liberty to the petitioners to utilise their lands for construction of the building proposed by them, the competent authority under the Land Tax Act is bound to reassess the land and make appropriate additional entries in the revenue records as to the present nature of the land. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has taken strong exception to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that KLU order does not Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 16 apply to an area which is categorised as residential zone as per the structural plan of the city. Similarly, the learned Additional Advocate General has also taken strong exception to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 27A of the Act does not apply to an area which is categorised as residential zone as per the structural plan of a city. I am not adverting to the various reasons stated by the learned Additional Advocate General to justify the aforesaid stand as I find it unnecessary to go into the said questions for redressing the grievance of the petitioners. 9. As noted, the building project of the petitioners is one proposed by them within the limits of the erstwhile Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat at a point of time when the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 have not been enforced in the Panchayat. It is not disputed that the practice prevailing at the relevant time for construction of buildings in Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 17 the Panchayat was to obtain Certificates in the nature of Ext.P2 from the Panchayat. As noted, the petitioners have obtained Ext.P2 Certificate from the Panchayat for the building proposed by them. The materials on record indicate that the petitioners have obtained other necessary permissions and licences required for construction of the building also from the authorities concerned. Ext.P6 stop memo dated 01.09.2008 would show that on the strength of Ext.P2 Certificate, the petitioners have constructed a compound wall around the lands and commenced the construction of the building proposed by them. Ext.P3 series photographs and Ext.P15 report of the Village Officer would show that the petitioners have completed the piling works of the building and also started erecting the columns of the building. Ext.P15 report of the Village Officer would also indicate that the lands where the petitioners propose the building which are shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 18 have been converted long back and the same are not shown as paddy land or wetland in the data bank prepared under the Act. The case of the petitioners needs to be considered in the light of the aforesaid facts. 10. As noted, insofar as the lands of the petitioners which are shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam' were converted long prior to the commencement of the Act, construction of a building therein prior to the Act with the permission of the local authority and other statutory bodies cannot be said to be an unlawful act [See **Aishabeevi v. Superintendent of Police,** 2014 (3) KLT 1078]. The construction activity undertaken by the petitioners was though interrupted by the Village Officer as per Ext.P6 stop memo, the same was quashed by this Court as per Ext.P11 judgment. Of course, the said decision of this Court was on the premise that the KLU order does not apply to an area shown as residential Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 19 zone in the structural plan of the city sanctioned under the Town Planning Act. Ext.P11 judgment has become final and binding inter parties. As noted, in terms of Ext.P11 judgment, this Court directed the petitioners to obtain building permit for the construction proposed by them, as by the time the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 came to be implemented in the Panchayat. As such, in the light of Ext.P11 judgment, the Municipality which is the successor of the then Thrikakara Panchayat cannot insist the petitioners to obtain permission of the competent authority under the KLU order, even if the same applies to the land owned by the petitioners. 11. The next question is as to whether the Municipality is justified in insisting compliance of the provision contained in Section 27A of the Act for the purpose of processing the application submitted by the petitioners for building permit. Sub-section (1) of Section 27A of the Act which Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 20 makes it obligatory for obtaining permission to utilise the lands which are shown in the revenue records as paddy land or wetland, but not shown as paddy land or wetland in the data bank prepared under the Act, reads thus: **27A. Change of nature of unnotified land.** - (1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed. As evident from the extracted provision, the permission provided for therein needs to be obtained only by an owner of such a land who desires to utilise the same for residential or commercial or other purposes. Section 27A of the Act which is introduced with effect from 30.12.2017 cannot have any retrospective operation and the same cannot be applied to a land which has already been utilised for other purposes. It is so held by this Court in **Global Educational Trust v. State of** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 21 **Kerala,** 2020 (6) KLT 738. The construction proposed by the petitioners in the land which was commenced about a decade prior to the introduction of Section 27A is not over cannot be a reason at all for insisting compliance of the said provision. In other words, Ext.P17 notice issued by the Municipality to the petitioners stating that the petitioners have to obtain permission of the competent authority under Section 27A of the Act is unsustainable in law. 12. The remaining issue is as to the right of the petitioners to claim change of classification of the lands in the revenue records. In **Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep** , 2015(1) KLT 984(SC), the Apex Court has held that if a land which is classified in the revenue records as 'Nilam' is not included in the data bank prepared under the Act as paddy land, permission of the competent authority under the KLU Order is required for making use of the same for other Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 22 purposes. It was also held by the Apex Court that the nature of the land cannot be changed or converted by directing changes in Basic Tax Register which is maintained only for the purpose of the land tax. In **Mariumma** , it was however clarified by a Division Bench of this court subsequently that if on the commencement of the Act, a land to which KLU order applies was not included in the data bank, conversion of its status can be made only based on an order passed by the competent authority under the KLU order; that if an order is passed by the competent authority under the KLU order changing the user of the land, such a change in the user of the land would render the assessments already made under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act redundant and that therefore, what is called for in a situation of this nature is a fresh assessment in accordance with the Kerala Land Tax Act and that once a fresh assessment is made, it would be open to the authorities to make appropriate Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 23 additions in the Basic Tax Register. Of late, the Act was amended in terms of Act 29 of 2018 with effect from 30.12.2017 and specific provisions have been incorporated, conferring power on the competent authorities to grant permission to make use of the lands which are not included as paddy land in the data bank prepared under the Act, but nevertheless continues to be classified in the revenue records as 'Nilam', and also for changing its classification in the revenue records. In terms of the amendment referred to above, such lands are defined in the Act as 'unnotified land'. Section 27A is a provision in Act 29 of 2018 conferring power on the competent authority to grant permission to make use of unnotified lands for other purposes and Section 27C is a provision in the said Act conferring power on the competent authority to change its classification. Sub-section(5) of Section 27C provides that no attempt shall be made to alter or change Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 24 or modify the revenue records relating to the paddy land or wetland or unnotified land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions therein. In other words, after the amendment to the Act in terms of Act 29 of 2018, change of classification of a land can be sought only based on an order passed by the competent authority under Section 27A of the Act. 13. Reverting to the facts, as noted, it is seen that though there was no impediment at all for the petitioners to resume the construction of the building proposed by them on the strength of Ext.P11 judgment of this Court after obtaining building permit from the local authority as directed in the said judgment, by way of abundant caution, they preferred an application before the District Collector who is the competent authority under the KLU order to utilise their lands which are shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam' for the purpose of putting up the construction proposed by them. The said Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 25 application has been allowed by the District Collector as per Ext.P12 communication and the petitioners were granted permission to utilise the lands owned by them for construction of the building proposed by them, if the said lands are not shown as paddy land or wetland in the data bank prepared under the Act. Admittedly, the lands of the petitioners are not shown as paddy land or wetland in the data bank prepared under the Act. If as a matter of fact, KLU order applies to the lands of the petitioners, according to me, Ext.P12 communication can certainly be regarded as a permission granted by the competent authority under the KLU order to utilise the lands owned by the petitioners for other purposes, though the same is not styled as one issued under the KLU order. I take this view also for the reason that insofar as the lands owned by the petitioners which are shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam' have been converted long prior to the coming Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 26 into force of the Act, had the petitioners preferred an application for permission under the KLU order to utilise the lands for other purposes, instead of preferring the application before the competent authority seeking a declaration that the KLU order does not apply to them on which Ext.P12 communication was issued, they would have certainly been granted permission under the KLU order, for large number of similarly placed persons could secure permission under the KLU order, especially after the decision of the Apex Court in **Jalaja Dileep** and all of them could also obtain classification of their lands in the revenue records on that basis. The petitioners alone, in the circumstances, cannot be deprived of the said benefit especially in the light of Ext.P12 communication issued by the competent authority under the KLU order. 14. The writ petitions, in the circumstances, are allowed. Ext.P17 notice of the fifth respondent Municipality is Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 27 quashed and the Municipality is directed to consider the application of the petitioners for building permit without insisting on orders under the KLU order or under Section 27A of the Act. Similarly, the eighth respondent is directed to reassess the lands of the petitioners covered by Ext.P21 application, treating Ext.P12 communication of the District Collector as permission under the KLU order to utilise the lands of the petitioners which are shown in the revenue records as "Nilam" for other purposes. Needless to say that on reassessment, the competent authority shall issue appropriate directions to the revenue officials to change the classification of the lands in the revenue records as dry lands. The directions aforesaid shall be complied with, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** YKB Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 28 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3381/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 19.2.2019 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX BY THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P1(A)** - **EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 19.2.2019 AND 16.2.2019 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX BY THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 23.8.2006 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT (THEN PANCHYAT) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS** - **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE IN THE YEAR 2006 SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PILING WORKS CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONERS** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.3734B/RB1/07/LSGD DATED 3.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF GO NO.23548/ED2/08/LSGD DATED 3.4.2008** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 1.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.A42445/2008 ISSUED BY 22.8.2008 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 29 **DATED 29.2.2008 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FOREST IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF NOC FORM AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA DATED 10.7.2009 RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND DATED 2.4.2008 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.9156/2010 DATED 18.3.2010 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.L5-60852/08 DATED 18.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.2012 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.4.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS SHOWING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.5.2013 TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.10.2013** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE DATABANK REGISTER** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 30 **MAINTAINED WITH THE 7TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 9.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.26809/2020 DATED 6.1.2021 EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM A APPLICATION DATED 4.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT ANNEXURE AND THE ACKNOWLEDGE OF THE SAME DATED 6.2.2021** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 31 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6495/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 19.2.2019 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX BY THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 19.2.2019 AND 16.2.2019 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX BY THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 23.8.2006 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT (THEN PANCHAYAT) IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE IN THE YEAR 2006 SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVES AND PILLING WORKS CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO 3734B/RBI/07/LSGD DATED 3.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF GO NO 23548/RD2/08/LSGD DATED 3.4.2008** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 1.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO A42445/2008 ISSUED BY 22.8.2008 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 32 **DATED 29.2.2008 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FOREST ON FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF NOC FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA DATED 10.7.2009 RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND DATED 2.4.2008 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 9156/2010 DATED 18.3.2010** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO L5-60852/08 DATED 18.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.2012 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.4.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS SHOWING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.5.2013 TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.10.2013** **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 14.4.2018** **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE** Writ Petition (C) Nos.3381 and 6495 of 2021 33 ## **PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK REGISTER MAINTAINED WITH THE 7TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 9.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P20 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 26809/2020 DATED 6.1.2021** **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE DATED 8.3.2019** **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA DATED 30.10.2017 EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 1.1.2019** **EXHIBIT P24** **EXHIBIT P25** **EXHIBIT P26** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOC FROM FIRE DEPARTMENT DATED 1.11.2018** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE WILDLIFE NOC DATED 22.1.2021 OBTAINED FOR THE PROJECT** **TRUE COPY OF THE FORM A APPLICATION DATED 4.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT ANNEXURES**