Perunninakulam Kshethra Upadesaka Samithi v. Cochin Devaswom Board and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.12821 OF 2020 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` PERUNNINAKULAM KSHETHRA UPADESAKA SAMITHI REG.NO.403/19, PERUNNINAKULAM SIVA TEMPLE, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, IRUMPANAM P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682309, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, RAJEEV NARAYANAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, SWATHI BHAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682301. ``` ``` BY ADVS.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.`** - **`2 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LC UNIT), COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680001.`** - **`*ADDL.R3 NARAYANA MENON, S/O.KRISHNAMENON, THEKKUM BHAGOM, IRUMPANAM, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682301 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.01.2021 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2020 IN W.P(C)NO.12821 OF 2020).`** - **`*ADDL.R4 LEELAMMA, AGED 79 YEARS, D/O.KORATHATTU DEVAKIAMMA, PARAPPILLIL HOUSE, IRIMPANAM, TRIPUNITHURA AND NOW RESIDING AT C/207, JUPITOR, 2ND FLOOR, HARANANDINI COMPLEX, NEAR LAKHANDAWALA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE 4 BALGALOWS ANDHERI, BOMBAY-400069.`** - **`*ADDL.R5 BHANUMATHIAMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, D/O.KORATHATTU DEVAKIAMMA, PARAPPILLIL HOUSE, IRIMPANAM,`** 2 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 ``` TRIPUNITHURA AND NOW RESIDING AT ROOM NO.132, ARAM NAGAR, MACHILIMAR, ANDHERI, BOMBAY-400069 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 AS PER ORDER DATED 28.01.2021 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.12821 OF 2020. ``` ``` *ADDL.R6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002 ``` - **`*ADDL.R7 THAHSILDAR, FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, UNION CLUB ROAD, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001 (ADDITIONAL R6 AND R7 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.02.2023 IN WP(C)12821/2020).`** ``` BY ADVS.SRI.JOSE TOM C. KANDATHIL SHRI.MATHAI K.C. ``` ``` SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; ``` ``` SRI K.P. SUDHEER - STANDING COUNSEL - COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner is the Temple Advisory Committee of Perunninakulam Siva Temple, Irumpanam, a temple under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board, and the said committee is constituted under Section 76A of the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to measure out and demarcate the pond and its surroundings belonging to Perunninakulam Siva Temple and initiate appropriate measures to recover the property from trespassers, in pursuance of Ext.P3 communication dated 28.11.2018 issued by the 1[st] respondent Secretary of Cochin Devaswom Board to the 2[nd] respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy Unit), Cochin Devaswom Board. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the property surrounding the temple pond of Perunninakulam Siva Temple is encroached by private persons and they are making arrangements to create documents in their favour. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board the encroachments made on the temple 4 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 property surrounding the pond. The 2[nd] respondent Special Tahsildar, after verifying the available sketch, informed the petitioner that he has already noticed the encroachments and curative measures are in the offing. No action has been taken based on Ext.P3 communication dated 28.11.2018 issued by the 1[st] respondent Secretary of Cochin Devaswom Board, other than sending some communications to each other. The inaction on their part has resulted in the trespassers freely occupying the temple property and converting it for their own use. 3. On 29.06.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the petitioner was directed to implead the alleged encroachers. The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions. 4. By the order dated 28.01.2021 in I.A.Nos.1 of 2020 and 1 of 2021, the alleged encroachers were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. 5. On 16.12.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “3. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the judgment dated 18.11.2015 in W.P.(C)No.5100 of 2012, which is one filed by the additional 3[rd] respondent along with additional respondents 4 and 5. 5 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 4. Though this writ petition is one filed on 29.06.2020, this Court has not granted any interim order. 5. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent has made available for the perusal of this Court a photograph of the flex board erected by the Secretary of the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee, in which it is written that any transactions or constructions in the property, which is the subject matter of W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 pending before this Court, is prohibited. 6. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent to place on record the aforesaid photograph along with the counter affidavit of the said respondent or an application to accept document.” 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent, the alleged encroacher, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R3(1) to R3(10) documents. 7. On 10.02.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “2. The 3[rd] respondent entered appearance and filed counter affidavit, producing therewith Ext.R3(6) judgment dated 18.11.2015 in W.P.(C)No.5100 of 2012. That original petition was one filed by the 3[rd] respondent seeking rectification in revenue records relating to 22 cents of property in old Sy.No.726 of Thiruvankulam Village. A reading of Ext.R3(6) judgment would show that, in that writ petition, additional respondents 3 to 5 herein raised a contention that they have obtained the property by virtue of a purchase certificate of 6 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 the year 1981. No further proceedings were initiated to get it registered under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, up to 1996. In the meantime, re-survey has been effected and the said property has been included in resurvey No.300/14 as Devaswom Puramboke. For reasons best known to respondents 3 to 5 herein, they have not chosen to implead the Cochin Devaswom as a party in W.P.(C)No.5100 of 2022. 3. Ext.R3(1) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent is a photograph of a banner fixed on the fence of the property owned by the 3[rd] respondent, which is covered by Ext.R3(4) Purchase Certificate issued in favour of Smt. Devaki Amma, which is one dated 28.12.1981, and Ext.R3(5) document No.5138 of 1994. In the remarks column of Ext.R3(4) purchase certificate the name of Thripunithura Devaswom is mentioned. The description of the Northern boundary of the property is shown as 'നടുമി്ᩢം ദേവസ്വം വക'. In the banner seen in Ext.R3(1) photograph, it is written that “all transactions and constructions in the property is prohibited, since the writ petition is pending before the High Court of Kerala as W.P(C)No.12821 of 2020”. The mobile number of the Secreatary of Perunninakulam Kshethra upadesaka Samithi is also shown in that banner. 4. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Dattatreya and others v. Mahaveer [(2004)10 SCC 665]** , in certain circumstances, non-impleadment of the affected parties in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would amount to deliberate suppression of material facts. Considering the pleadings and materials on record and also the nature of relief sought for, 7 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 we are of the view that the conduct of the petitioner in filing this writ petition without impleading the 3[rd] respondent and others amounts to deliberate suppression of material facts. The Secretary of the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee has also to offer proper explanation for non impleadment of affected parties at the time of filing this writ petition and also for his conduct in exhibiting such a banner on the fence of the property in question. The 3[rd] respondent shall also file an affidavit offering explanation for his conduct in filing W.P.(C)No.5100 of 2022 before this Court, without the Cochin Devaswom Board in the party array. xxx xxx xxx 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader to make available for the perusal of this Court, the files relating to Ext.R3(4) purchase certificate, on the next posting date.” 8. In terms of the directions contained in the order dated 10.02.2023, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 15.02.2023. The additional 3[rd] respondent has also filed an affidavit dated 03.03.2023. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for the 1[st] respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned counsel for the additional 3[rd] respondent. 10. Service of notice is not complete on additional respondents 4 and 5. Considering the nature of relief proposed 8 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 to be granted, completion of service of notice on additional respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with. 11. The relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to measure out and demarcate the pond and its surroundings belonging to Perunninakulam Siva Temple and initiate appropriate measures to recover the property from trespassers, in pursuance of Ext.P3 communication dated 28.11.2018 issued by the 1[st] respondent Secretary of Cochin Devaswom Board to the 2[nd] respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy unit). 12. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. [see: **Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others** - **2018 (1) KHC 536]** 13. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by 9 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 14. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan** , on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy.No.1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy.No.1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy.No.1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the 10 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S.No.399 of 1998) was validly arrived at between them (the plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (the defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the proposal after taking legal advice and had duly passed a resolution to settle the suit. It was further contended that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. They relied on the provisons of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The Apex Court held that, the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered with lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the High Court by the 11 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 order dated 09.09.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy.No.1042/2 immediately from Respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No.3 of 1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with Respondents 2 and 3, giving up the right, title and interest in Sy.No.1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. The Apex Court concluded that, viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. ## 15. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair** **[2013 (3) KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, 12 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 16. In **Mohanan Nair** the Division Bench relied on the decision in **Achuthan Pillai v. State of Kerala [1970 KLT 838]** , wherein a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of an order passed by the Government under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. By the said order the Government cancelled the sanction given for transfer of immovable property of a Devaswom. The initial order, i.e., Ext.P1 order was passed by the Commissioner for sanction to lease 600 acres of forest land belonging to Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom. The said order was passed in the year 1960 and the Government cancelled the same by Ext.P5 order dated 23.02.1967. The Full Bench traced the principles regarding the rights of an authority to protect the institution like Devaswom in order to prevent fraud. The Full Bench held that the power to cancel a sanction and thereby to make null and void an improvident transfer or alienation of immovable property of a Devaswom, though exercised under the guise of revision, is visitorial in character. It is a matter of common knowledge that 13 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 even from very early times religious and charitable institutions in India came under the special protection of the ruling authority. The rulers of the country always asserted their right to visit these institutions in order to prevent fraud and redress the abuses in their management. In the celebrated **Rameswar Pagoda case [(1874) 1 Ind App 209]** it was pointed out by the Judicial Committee that the former rulers of this country always asserted the right to visit endowments of this kind to prevent and redress the abuses in their management. The authorities, therefore, support the conclusion that supervision and control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions is a function of government and that Government at all times asserted and exercised the power. The fact that Government did not exercise the power immediately when it became aware of the circumstances vitiating Ext.P1 order cannot prejudice the interest of the Devaswom. If the contentions of the petitioner were to prevail, it would mean that because the Government was not very vigilant in exercising the power the interest of the Devaswom should suffer. Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides no period of limitation for a suit against a person in whom the trust property has become vested for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns for the 14 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 purpose of following in his or their hands such property. The reason behind the section is that an express trust ought not suffer by the misfeasance or non-feasance of a trustee. ## 17. In **Nandakumar v. District Collector and others** **[2018 (2) KHC 58]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court as to the role to be played by the High Court in exercising the ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction in **Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom** **Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** . The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]** . In the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has been effected without involvement of the Devaswom, securing ‘pattayam’ or such other deeds, the same cannot confer any right upon the parties concerned, unless the title so derived is clear in all respects. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. 18. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board [2018 (3) KHC 549]** a Division Bench of 15 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 this Court found that the task undertaken by the complainant to ensure that the property of the Devaswom is protected and preserved has ultimately brought out the plain truth that the said property was sought to be appropriated by strangers and that the property in Sy.No.1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court and also by the Apex Court [A.A. Gopalakrishnan - (2007) 7 SCC 482]. Proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy.No. 1043 as well. This is more so since in view of the ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction being entrusted with the Court in this regard and there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected. ## 19. In **Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC** - **OnLine SC 667]** order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - the Apex Court noticed that the issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilisation of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all Shrines throughout India, irrespective of religion practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the 16 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 Constitution of India and there is a need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a court also to issue directions for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or by assigning the issue/matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction examine above aspects and if necessary, send a report to the High Court. The High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as become necessary having regard to the individual fact situation. 20. In the order dated 10.02.2023, this Court noticed that Ext.R3(1) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent is a photograph of a banner fixed on the fence of the property owned by the 3[rd] respondent, which is covered by Ext.R3(4) Purchase Certificate issued in favour of Smt. Devaki Amma, which is one dated 28.12.1981, and Ext.R3(5) document No.5138 of 1994. In the remarks column of Ext.R3(4) purchase certificate the name of Thripunithura Devaswom is mentioned. 17 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 The description of the Northern boundary of the property is shown as 'നടുമി്ᩢം ദേവസ്വം വക'. In the banner seen in Ext.R3(1) photograph, it is written that “all transactions and constructions in the property is prohibited, since the writ petition is pending before the High Court of Kerala as W.P(C)No.12821 of 2020”. The mobile number of the Secreatary of Perunninakulam Kshethra Upadesaka Samithi is also shown in that banner. 21. As held by this Court in **Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 290]** and reiterated in **Rajalekshmi P. v. State of Kerala** **[2023 (3) KHC 491]** , the role of a Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the Act, the activities of which are regulated by the bye-laws framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, in a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board is to assist the Board and its officials to discharge its functions under the provisions of Section 15A of the Act. 22. The provisions under Section 31A of the Act, which deals with the constitution of Temple Advisory Committees in temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board is _pari materia_ with the provisions under Section 76A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, which 18 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 deals with the formation of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board. Therefore, the principles laid down by this Court in **Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee [2023 (2) KHC** **290]** and **Rajalekshmi P. [2023 (3) KHC 491]** are squarely applicable in the matter of Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. 23. When the activities of a Temple Advisory Committee constituted under Section 76A of the Act are governed by the provisions under the bye-laws (rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 76A, the conduct of the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee referred to in the order 10.02.2023 in erecting the banner seen in Ext.R3(1) photograph in the disputed land has to be deprecated in the strongest words and we do so. We make it clear that any such activity by the Temple Advisory Committee has to be dealt with appropriately by the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, by taking stern action. 24. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2[nd] respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy Unit) to measure out and demarcate the pond and its surroundings belonging to Perunninakulam Siva Temple and initiate appropriate measures to recover the 19 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 property from trespassers, with notice to the affected parties, including additional respondent 3 to 5. In case additional respondents 3 and 4 are no more, the proceedings before the 2[nd] respondent shall be with notice to their legal representatives. 25. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** AV/30/10 20 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12821/2020`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE TEMPLE POND RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S FILE DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.R11679/18 DATED 28.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT R3 (1) TRUE COPY OF PHOTO BANNER ERECTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER EXHIBIT R3 (2) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF TAHSILDAR DATED 03/08/2018 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R3 (3) TRUE COPY OF APPROVED SKETCH ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR ``` ``` EXHIBIT R3 (4) KRAYA CERTIFICATE DATED 03/10/1981 ISSUED BY DY. COLLECTOR LAND TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT R3 (5) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 08/08/2018 EXHIBIT R3 (6) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C)NO.5100 OF 2012 DATED 18/11/2015 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R3 (7) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C)NO.39926 OF 2016 DATED 16/12/2016 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R3 (8) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 13/05/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT ``` ``` EXHIBIT R3 (9) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 717 OF 2020 ``` 21 W.P.(C)No.12821 of 2020 ``` OF SRO TRIPUNITHURA ``` ``` EXHIBIT R3 (10) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 734 OF 2020 OF SRO TRIPUNITHURA ```