Nileswar Koottathilara Sree Vishnumoorthi Kshethra Managing Committee v. State of Kerala & Others (W.P.(C) Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022)

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 4353 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 T.P.KUNHAMBU NAIR AGED 76 YEARS S/O. P.CHATHU NAIR, RESIDING AT SREEDEVI, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671314.` - `2 GIREESH K.R., AGED 43 YEARS S/O. RAMANANTHA KAMATH, GEETHALAYAM, KOOTTATHILARA, NILESWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT671314.` - `3 SURESH KUMAR P.K., AGED 62 YEARS S/O. A.C.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PATTATHIL HOUSE, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671314.` - `4 BINESH BALAN P.V., AGED 34 YEARS S/O. P.V.BALAN, VANNATHAN VEEDU, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671314.` - `5 VARSHA MANJUNATH, AGED 32 YEARS W/O. MANJUNATH, VEDAVYAS BHAVAN, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671314. BY ADVS. SURESH KUMAR KODOTH K.P.ANTONY BINU` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 SUB COLLECTOR/ SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARGOD-671123.` -2- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 ``` 2DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD, VIDYANAGAR P.O., 671121. 3NILESWAR KOOTTATHILARA SREE VISHNUMOORTHI KSHETHRA MANAGING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWAR VILLAGE & POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT- 671315. BY ADVS. R.KRISHNA RAJ E.S.SONI ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).18027/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1943 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` NILESWAR KOOTTATHILARA SREE VISHNUMOORTHI KSHETHRA MANAGING COMMITTEE REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, T.V.NARAYANAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KANNOTH AMBU MANIYANI, RESIDING AT PADINHATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD 671 315 ``` ``` BY ADVS. R.KRISHNA RAJ E.S.SONI KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR RESMI A. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 ``` - `2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KASARAGOD 671 121` ``` 3SUB COLLECTOR/SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD 671 123 4TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-PANVEL HWY, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD 671 315 ``` -4- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 - `5 VILLAGE OFFICER NILESWAR VILLAGE OFFICE, MOOLAPPALLY ROAD, NILESHWAR, KERALA 671 314` - `6 GIREESH K.R. GEETHA NIALAYAM, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWARAM 671 314` - `7 P.K.REMANIYAMMA PATTATHIL HOUSE, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWARAM, KASARAGOD 671 314` - `8 INDIRA VANNATHAAN VEEDU, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWARAM, KASARAGOD 671 314` - `9 MANJUNATHAN K.R. VEDAVYASA BHAVAN, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWARAM, KASARAGOD 671 314` - `10 KUNJAMBU NAIR T.P. SREEDEVI, PADINJATTAM KOZHUVAL, NILESWARAM, KASARAGOD- 671 314` ``` BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SURESH KUMAR KODOTH K.P.ANTONY BINU ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).4353/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -5- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== W.P.(C) Nos.18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 ============================================================= Dated this the 9[th ] day of March, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. I will first narrate the facts in WP(C) No.18027 of 2021. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition is the Nileswar Koottathilara Sree Vishnumoorthi Kshethra Managing Committee represented by its President. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 1 to 5 are proceeding against the property of Koottathilara Sree Vishnumoorthi, the deity of Kolari Bhooda Sthaanam. It is a property with an extent of 88 cents situated in Re.Sy.No.20/4 of Nileswaram Village. The grievance is that, the official respondents are treating this property as Puramboku and has initiated proceedings under the -6- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 Land Conservancy Act. The proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C is also initiated based on a complaint filed by party respondents 6 to 10 claiming right of way over the property of the deity. According to the petitioner, ignoring the directions of the Apex Court in the order dated 05.07.2018 in WP(C) No.649 of 2018, Exts.P2 and P9 orders were passed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per Ext.P2 there is a direction to take over the temple and the temple property itself. Hence, this writ petition is filed with following prayers: - _“a. quash Exhibit.P-2 and P-9 by the issue or writ of certiorari or such other Writ or order or direction._ - _b. declare that the property having an extent of 88 Cents in resurvey no.20/4 of Nileswaram Village is the property belonging to the minor deity Sri Vishnu Moorthy of Kolari Bhoodasthaanam and consequently direct respondents 1 to 5 to protect and preserve the property of the minor deity by the issue of writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction.” (Sic)_ 3. The case of the petitioners in WP(C) No.4353 of -7- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 2022 is different. According to them, their only access to their residential house is now blocked by the 3[rd] respondent Committee, which is the petitioner in the other case. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P5 report, the Tahsildar already found that there is a pathway and this is the only pathway available to the petitioners to access their residential property. It is also stated that the pathway is a motoroable one. But ignoring the same, the 1[st] respondent refused to entertain the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C as per Ext.P7 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 and other connected orders, WP(C) No.4353 of 2022 is filed with following prayers: - “ _i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to call for records and quash Ext.P7, P9 and P12 declaring it to be illegal._ - _ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action for removal of unlawful obstruction from public way, as reported in Ext.P5, forthwith._ -8- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 _iii) Issue any other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The counsel for the petitioners raised their contentions in their respective writ petitions. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the temple is situated in a Purambokku land. Actually Ext.P2 order in WP(C) No.18027 of 2021 was passed when the petitioner in that writ petition tried to cut and remove trees from the puramboku land. The Government Pleader contended that, if any civil right of the petitioners in these two writ petitions are violated, they have to approach the civil Court. 6. This Court considered the contentions raised by the petitioners and the Government Pleader. I peruse Exts.P2 and P9 orders in WP(C) No.18027 of 2021. In Ext.P2 order the -9- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 Tahsildar (LR) passed an order even to take over the property of the temple. It will be better to extract paragraphs 3 and 4 of Ext.P2. "തുടർനന ഭൂരേഖ തഹസിൽദാർ 25.05.2019 ന് 3.00 മണിക സ്ഥലം സന്ദർശിക് യും അനധികൃതമായി സർക്കാർ ഭൂമിയിൽ ക പെ ടുന്ന തേ ക മരങ്ങൾ മുറിച്ചതായും ബ ോധ്യപ്പെട്ടു. സർക്കാർ ഭൂമി കൈ യ്യേറി മരങ്ങൾ മുറിക്കുന്നത് കെ .എൽ.സി ആക പ്രകാരം കുറ്റകരമാണ് . ഈ സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ കെ .എൽ.സി നിയമം 12(1) വകുപപ പ്രകാരമുളള ഡി4- 1873757/റവ തീയതി 01/01/1985 ലെ ഗവ. നനോട്ടിഫിക്കേഷൻ പ്രകാരം സിദ്ധിച്ച അധികാരമുപയയോഗിച ക്ഷേത്രസമിതി ഭാരവാഹികൾ കൈ യ്യേറിയ നീലേ ശ്വരം വില്ലേജ് റീ.സനം 2014 ൽപ്പെട്ട ഭൂമിയിൽ നിനന ടി ആളുകളെ ഒഴിപ്പിചച സ്ഥലമേറ്റെടുത്തുകകൊണ്ടും ക മരം സർക്കാറിലേ ക ഏറ്റെടുത്തുകകൊണ്ടും ഉടൻ പ്രാബല്യത്തിൽ ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു. കെ .എൽ.സി നിയമം (2009 ലെ ഭേദഗതി) വകുപപ പ്രകാരം കൈ യ്യേറ്റ കക്ഷിയിൽ നിനന 50000/ ( അമ്പതിനായിരം രൂപ മാത്രം ഈടാക്കാനും ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു. ഈ നനോട്ടീസ് കൈ പ്പറ്റി 15 ദിവസത്തിനുള്ളിൽ കൈ യ്യേറ്റകക്ഷി പിഴത്തുക നീലേ ശ്വരം വില്ലേജ് ഓഫീസിൽ ഒടുക്കാവുന്നതാണ് മരത്തിന്റെ വിലയായി അസി. ഫഫോറസറ്റ കൺസർവേ റ്റർ നിശ്ചയിച്ച തുക (ഒരു ലക്ഷത്തി ഇരുപ്ത്തൊന്നായിരത്തി നാന്നൂറ്റി നാല് രൂപ ) അടക്കുന്ന പക്ഷം മരകഷണങ്ങൾ വിട്ടു നല്കുന്നതാണ്.” 7. The same is confirmed in Ext.P9 order by the 3[rd] respondent. The relevant portion of Ext.P9 order is also -10- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 ## extracted hereunder: "പരാമർശ വിധേ യമായ ഭൂമി റവന്യൂ രേഖകൾ പ്രകാരം ന സർക്കാർ പുറമ്പമ്പോക ഭൂമിയാണെ വ്യക്തമായ സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ അനധികൃതമായി മരം മുറിച്ചുമാറ്റിയ ക്ഷേത്ര അധികാരികളുടെ നടപടി കേ രള ഭൂസംരക്ഷണ നിയമ പ്രകാരം നിയമ വിരുദ്ധ പ്രവർത്തനമാണ്. സർക്കാർ ഭൂമി സംരക്ഷിക്കുവാൻ നിയുക്തനായ ഉദ്യദ്യോഗസ്ഥനെ ന്ന നിലയിൽ നടപടിക്രമങ്ങൾ പാലിച്ചുകകൊണട ഉത്തരവ് പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളഹ ഹൊസ്ദുർഗ് ഭൂരേഖ തഹസിൽദാരുടെ നടപടി നിയമപരമായ കർത്തവ്യമാണ്. ടി സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ കൂട്ടത്തിലറ ശ്രീ.വിഷ്ണുമൂർത്തി ക്ഷേത്ര ഭാരവാഹികൾ സമർപ്പിച്ച അപ്പീൽ അപേ ക്ഷ തള്ളി്ക്കൊണ്ടും, ഹഹൊസ്ദുർഗ് ഭൂരേഖ തഹസിൽദാരുടെ ഉത്തരവ് നിലനിർത്തി്ക്കൊണ്ടും ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു.” 8. The counsel for the petitioner takes me through the judgment of this Court in **Nandakumar v. District Collector [2018 (1) KLT 1019]** and contended that the property cannot be taken over based on a land conservancy proceedings. Paragraph 13 of the above judgment reads thus: _“13. Nowhere either under Section 13 or under Section 13A of the Act, is there any stipulation as to the "consent of the District Collector" to be obtained for effecting measurement of the properties concerned. That apart, there is no case for the party respondents or_ -11- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 _anybody else, that they had any such case before, as to the necessity to rely upon the provisions of The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act or as to the alleged 'consent to be obtained from the District Collector in any manner to carry out a direction given by this Court as per Ext.P6. There is a clear finding by this Court [as discernible from the directions given in Exts P6 and P9] as to the necessity to proceed with further steps in terms of The Kerala Land Conservancy Act to safe-guard the properties belonging to the Devaswom, if at all there is any encroachment. The role of this Court, exercising 'parens patriae' jurisdiction is to protect the property of the Deity; the Deity of a Hindu Temple being a perpetual minor. This is evident from the observations contained in Ext.P6 verdict passed by this Court; which also reveals the misconception nurtured by the officers concerned in invoking the provisions under The Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Ext.P6 are quite relevant in this regard and hence are extracted below:_ _"These matters relate to various allegations as to encroachment into different parcels of lands under the control of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. Hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned amicus curiae on behalf of the learned Ombudsman, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the respective standing counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board, we see that the officers entrusted with the authority to_ -12- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 _initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957; for short, the 'L.C.Act'; in relation to the lands belonging to the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards or under their control, appear to be labouring under a misconception about such proceedings._ _2. Land conservancy proceedings cannot be carried out merely based on re-survey records Entries in re-survey records are predominantly on the basis of possession as of now. They would be totally worthless, when the question is as to whether lands vested in deities have been encroached upon and controlled by the Devaswom Boards and trustees, reduced to occupation by private persons or other agencies. Obviously, the prior revenue records have to be looked into to ascertain whether there is any parcel which stands vested, in a particular deity. If that be so, collateral materials will also have to be looked into to ascertain the genesis of the property. Even if there is no revenue record in that regard, the vesting, if any, in any deity has to be ascertained. The Courts act parens patriae in that regard. Foundation for land conservancy proceedings could be generated in terms of that legislation. Of course, summary procedure in terms of the L.C.Act has to be understood and applied in the light of the binding precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and jurisdictional High Court."_ 9. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) -13- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 No.18027 of 2021 also takes me through Ext.P12 order passed by the Apex Court, in which clause IX in paragraph 19 is relevant and the same is also extracted hereunder: _“ix) Difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilization of offerings and protections of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the concerned High Court so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation.”_ 10. From the above decision of this Court and the Apex Court, it is clear that the official respondents have no authority to take over the land of a deity. It is an admitted fact that there is a temple situated in the property. Whether it is a puramboku -14- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 land or the property of the deity is a matter to be decided by the appropriate civil Court. The official respondents have no right to take over the temple and its land using the powers under the Land Conservancy Act, especially in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, which are extracted above. Therefore, according to me, Ext.P9 order is to be set aside and the matter is to be reconsidered by the 3[rd] respondent in WP(C) No.18020 of 2021. 11. As far as the other writ petition (WP(C) No.4353 of 2022) is concerned, the grievance of the petitioners is that a motorable road is obstructed by the 3[rd] respondent by constructing a wall. According to the petitioners in this case, there is a motorable pathway, which is clear from Ext.P5. This is disputed by the 3[rd] respondent. In such situation, according to me, the proper remedy of the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court to establish their right. The grievance of the petitioners is -15- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 that the Sub Divisional Magistrate refused to entertain an application filed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It will be better to extract Ext.P7 here: " . സൂചനയിലേക ശ്രദ്ധ ക്ഷണിക്കുന്നു സൂചന പ്രകാരമുള്ള പരാതിയിൽ അന്വേഷണം നടത്തിയതിൽ പ്രസ് സ്ഥലം സർക്കാർപുറമ്പോക ( കോലാരിദേവസ്ഥാനം) ഭൂമിയാണെ ന്നും, ടിസ്ഥലതതകൂടിമുൻപ്വാഹനഗതാഗതംഉണ്ടായിരുന്നെങ്കിലും . നടവഴി നിലവിൽനടവഴിതടസ്സംഇല്ലായെ ന്നുംഅറിയുന്നു തടസ്സംഇല്ലാത്തസാഹചര്യത്തിൽഈവിഷയത്തിൽഈ കാര്യാലയത്തിൽ നിന്നും തുടർനടപടികൾ ഒന്നുംതന്നെ . സ്വീകരിക്കുവാനില്ലെന താങ്കളെ അറിയിക്കുന്നു ററോഡ് , ഗതാഗതംതദ്ദേശസ്വയംഭരണസ്ഥാപനവിഷയമായതിനാൽടി വിഷയം സംബന്ധിച്ച` പരിധിയിലെ മുനിസിപ്പാലിറ്റിയുടെ ബന്ധപ്പെടാവുന്നതാണ്.” 12. From the above, it is clear that the Sub Divisional Magistrate clearly stated that there is a pathway and there is no obstruction to the pathway. According to the petitioners, there is a motoroable pathway, but that is disputed by the 3[rd] respondent. In such circumstances, whether there is a motorable pathway or not is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. But, if there is any obstruction to the pathway, which is -16- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 mentioned in Ext.P7, the petitioner is free to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section.141 Cr.P.C and if such an application is filed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate will do the needful, in accordance to law. Therefore, these two writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner: 1. WP(C) No.18027 of 2021 is allowed in part. Ext.P9 order is set aside. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the party respondents. While reconsidering the matter, the 3[rd] respondent will consider the dictum laid down by this Court in **Nandakumar’s case cited supra** and the directions of the Apex Court in Ext.P12. Ext.P2 will be kept in abeyance, till final order is passed by the 3[rd] respondent as directed above. 2. WP(C) No.4353 of 2022 is disposed of, allowing the petitioner to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate, -17- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 if there is any obstruction to the pathway, which is mentioned in Ext.P7 order. The petitioners in this writ petition are free to approach the civil court to establish their motorable pathway, if they advised so. The petitioners are also free to file appropriate petition before the Civil Court for getting interim order also, and if such an application is received, the Civil Court will pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law. sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -18- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18027/2021`** - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER` - `Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE SUB COLLECTOR` ``` Exhibit P9COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COLLECTOR Exhibit P10COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE Exhibit P11COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER UNDER RTI ACT. ``` ``` Exhibit P12COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.649/2018 ``` - `Exhibit P13 Exhibit P14` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DATED NIL. ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT DATED 03-08- 2021. ``` -19- W.P.(C). Nos. 18027 of 2021 & 4353 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4353/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EYE SKETCH.` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION DATED 31.8.2019 BEFORE THE REVENUE MINISTER.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 3.2.2020 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 17.2.2020 OF THAHASILDAR(LR), HOSDURG.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.6.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.9.2021 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.11.2021 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.12.2021 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.7.2019 OF THE THAHASILDAR (LR), HOSDURG.` - `Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.8.2021 AGAINST 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 4.12.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS` - `Exhibit R3 a COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER`