Purnima V. Desai & Siddharth V. Desai v State of Kerala, Senior Town Planner, Thrikkakara Municipality & Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality; M/S Desai Homes v State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1942** **WP(C).No.12020 OF 2020(B)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**||**PURNIMA V. DESAI, AGED 62 YEARS,**| |---|---|---| |||**W/O.V.R.DESAI, 31/1772Q, DD VILLAGE, MAY 1ST ROAD,**| |||**THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM.**| |**2**||**SIDDHARTH V.DESAI, AGED 28 YEARS,**| |||**S/O.V.R.DESAI, 31.1772Q, DD VILLAGE, MAY 1ST ROAD,**| |||**THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,**| |||**LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,**| |||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**||**THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER,**| |||**TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682032.**| |**3**||**THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,**| |||**THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682030.**| |**4**||**THE SECRETARY,**| |||**THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,**| |||**THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682030.**| |||**SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER**| |||**SRI.G.G.MANOJ, SC**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).NOS.11810/2020 & 11767/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.11810 OF 2020(A)** ## **PETITIONER:** **PURNIMA V. DESAI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. V.R.DESAI, 31/1772Q, DD VILLAGE, MAY IST ROAD, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,**| ||**LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER,**| ||**TOWN PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, ERNAKULAM-682032.**| |**3**|**THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,**| ||**THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM-682030.**| |**4**|**THE SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,**| ||**MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM-682030.**| ||**SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER**| ||**SRI.G.G.MANOJ,SC**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).NOS.12020/2020 & 11767/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.11767 OF 2020(A)** ## **PETITIONER:** |||**M/S.DESAI HOMES**| |---|---|---| |||**40/7669/C 40, DD VASTRA MAHAL, MARKET ROAD,**| |||**KOCHI-682011, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,**| |||**V.R.DESAI, AGED 67 YEARS, 31/1772Q, DD VILLAGE,**| |||**MAY 1ST ROAD, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM.**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,**| |||**LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,**| |||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**2**||**THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER,**| |||**TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682 032.**| |**3**||**THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,**| |||**THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 030.**| |**4**||**THE SECRETARY,**| |||**THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,**| |||**THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 030.**| |||**SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER**| |||**SRI.G.G.MANOJ,SC**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).NOS.12020/2020 & 11810/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------------------W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of June, 2020 ## J U D G M E N T As the primary issues in these cases are the same, these three cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. WP©.No.12020/2020 is taken as the lead case. 2. The case set up in WP©.No.12020/2020 is as follows: The first petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 25.496 ares of landed property situated in Re. Survey No. 720/3(Pt) of Kakkanad Village and purchased as per Sale Deed Nos. 2713/2014 dated 13.8.2014 of the Sub Registry Office, Thrikkakara. The second petitioner, who is the son of the first petitioner, is the absolute owner and in possession of 12.944 ares of landed property situated in Re. Survey No. 720/3(Pt) of Kakkanad Village and purchased as per Sale Deed Nos. 2714/2014 dated 13.8.2014 of the Sub Registry Office, Thrikkakara. The properties are classified as dry land in the revenue records and Exts.P10 and P11 photographs show that the land in question as well as the neighbouring properties are fully developed. But Ext.P9 application for building permit was rejected by 4[th] respondent by Ext.P13 communication stating that the property comes under the area earmarked as agricultural zone by virtue W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** of structural plan for Central City of Kochi. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 22836 of 2015 before this Court and by virtue of Ext.P13 judgment the learned Single Judge was pleased to quash Ext. P12 and the 4[th] respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh and pass orders thereon within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The petitioners produced the judgment and submitted Form A application before the first respondent for changing the zoning. But no action is forthcoming. It is in the light of the abovesaid averments and contentions that the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: “ - _i) Declare that petitioners are entitled to get building permit as sought for by Ext. P9 for establishing a multi-storied apartment project in the property situated in Re-Survey No. 720/3(Pt) of Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk._ - _ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext. P9 without again referring to the objections in Ext. P12 and in the light of Ext. P13 judgment and to grant building permit as sought for and_ _iii) Pass such other orders or directions as may be deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”_ 3. The factual aspects in the other two WP©s are broadly similar. 4. Heard Sri.V.V.H.Gokul Das, learned counsel appearing W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** for the petitioners, Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for R-1 & R-2 and Sri.G.G.Manoj, learned Standing Counsel for the Thrikkakkara Municipality, appearing for R-3 & R-4. 5. The request of the petitioners in WP©.No.12020/2020 for grant of building permit has been rejected by the Secretary, Thrikkakkara Municipality, as per Ext.P-12 order dated 16.6.2015 produced therein, mainly on the ground that the subject property in which the petitioners propose to make building construction would fall within the agricultural zone, as per the notified structural plan of the central Cochin as per the Town Planning Scheme, and that construction up to 300 sq.m. can be made in such areas. The impugned Ext.P-12 notice in WP©.No.12020/2020 has already been set aside by this Court as per Ext.P-13 judgment dated 5.8.2015 in WP©.No. 22836/2015, which reads as follows: W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 ..7.. _“Ext.P6 notice, by which the petitioners' application for building permit was rejected, is under challenge._ _2. The petitioners alleges that their request for the permission to construct a multi-storied residential apartment building in his property having an extent of 38.44 ares has been rejected on the ground that the subject land is earmarked as agricultural zone as per the approved structural plan for central city of Kochi and hence no construction beyound 300 sq.mt. is permissible. The petitioners further allege that several multi-storied residential apartments have come up in the neighbouring properties and these constructions were effected as per the building permits issued by respondents 2 and 3. apart from that, the structural plan has become obsolete and inoperative. It is with this background, the petitioners have come up before this Court._ _3. Arguments have been heard._ _4. The learned counsel for the petitioners inviting my attention to Ext.P5 photographs would submit that the land in which the petitioner proposed to construct the building is suitable and fit for construction of multistoried building as it is a pucca garden land and the surrounding areas of the petitioners properties are fully developed and there are large number of multi-storied buildings there._ _5. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in_ _**Padmini** v._ _**State of Kerala** [1999 (3) KLT 465], wherein it was held that no building permit can be refused to any person because there is a proposal to acquire the land in future. Reliance was also placed to the decision of the apex court in_ _**Raju S. Jethmalani** v._ _**State of Maharastra** [(2005) 11 SCC 222], wherein it was held that refusing to grant permits relying on obsolete DTP schemes is a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Viewed in that profile, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for._ _Therefore, the writ petition is allowed._ _Ext.P6 is set aside and the respondent municipality is_ W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _directed to reconsider petitioners' application for building permit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the light of what has been stated above.”_ 6. A reading of Ext.P-13 judgment would clearly show that this Court after placing reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in _**Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465]**_ as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharasthra [(2005) 11 SCC 222]**_ have held that refusal to grant building permit relying on obsolete and antiquated detailed Town Planning Schemes, is a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution, and accordingly this Court held in Ext.P-13 judgment that, the petitioners therein are entitled to succeed and to get the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, this Court has set aside the impugned Ext.P-6 order therein and has allowed the prayers in the WP© and has directed the Municipality to reconsider the petitioners’ application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** in the light of what is stated in the said judgment. Therefore, as far as the petitioners in WP©.No.12020/2020, their case have been virtually allowed by this Court in the previous round of litigation that culminated in Ext.P-13 judgment produced therein, and even now the respondent Municipality has not passed orders on the petitioners’ application for grant of building permit in the subject property concerned. The impugned orders in the other two WP©s are broadly similar citing very same grounds, and this Court as per judgment dated 27.3.2015 in WP©.No.8846/2015 (produced as per Ext.P-8 in WP©.No.11767/2020) as well as the judgment dated 5.2.2015 in WP©.No.3648/2015 filed by those petitioners (produced as Ext.P-7 in WP©.No.11810/2017) has already set aside and quashed the orders of rejection impugned by those petitioners in the said two WP©s, and has directed its reconsideration by the respondent Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality. 7. It appears that all what has been done by the respondent Municipal authorities is that, they have directed the petitioners in all these 3 cases to file application before the respondent State government for change of zonal classification, W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [24 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** and the petitioners have filed such application produced as per Ext.P-15 in WP©.No.12020/2020, Ext.P-10 in WP©.No.11767/2020 and Ext.P-9 in WP©.No.11810/2020. 8. In fact these applications are pending before the respondent State government since the year 2016 or so, and it appears that no action has been forthcoming. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the matter in issue is broadly covered in favour of the petitioners, by the judgment rendered by this Court in the previous round of writ proceedings mentioned hereinabove, and all what remains is that the respondent Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality should have reconsidered the matter and considered the application for building permit in the light of the conclusive findings made by this Court that the detailed town planning scheme in question pursuant to which the structural plan has been formulated has become antiquated and obsolete, and the petitioners’ application for building permit should have considered on merits, in strict compliance of the provisions in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. So far, such an action is not forthcoming from the respondent Thrikkakara Municipality, except that they have W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [22 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** compelled the petitioners to take the circuitous route of filing application before the respondent State government for change of zonal classification. It has been pending file since the year 2016, and it appears that no progress has been made thereon. In the light of the conclusive findings made by this Court already in the judgment dated 5.8.2015 in WP©.No.22836/2015, all what remains is that, this Court has to pass orders in terms of that judgment, and to hold that the detailed town planning scheme pursuant to which the structural plan has been made, has become antiquated and obsolete and clinging on the said antiquated and obsolete scheme would amount to infringement of rights of the petitioners to enjoy their property in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, in accordance with law. Still further, it is seen that this Court has passed a series of judgments pertaining to similar issues raised in respect of building permit pending with the Thrikkakara Municipality, as can be seen from the **judgment dated 16.12.2018 in WP©.No.22153/2014, judgment dated 30.10.2014 in WP©.No.12868/2014,judgment dated 24.11.2014 in WP©.No.28985/2014, judgment dated 21.10.2014 in WP©.No.25371/2014 and judgment dated 23.3.2020 in** W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [24 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** **WP©.No.9057/2020** wherein this Court has considerably directed and held that the detailed town planning scheme pursuant to which structural town plan has been made has become obsolete and antiquated, and therefore in the light of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharasthra [(2005) 11 SCC 222]**_ the applications of respective petitioners for grant of building permit will have to be considered on merits by the Thrikkakara Municipality. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 26.10.2016 in WA.No.559/2016 has held with a case where indisputably the property had fallen under the agricultural zone as per the detailed town planning scheme. But the said scheme was not implemented, and consequently the number of colleges and schools, commercial buildings, and residential buildings built up in the said area and the land in question was to be fully surrounded by the commercial buildings, and residential buildings, and even schools were been run there and hence the Division Bench of this Court has held that though the town planning scheme is in existence, the same has not been implemented. And therefore the going by the dictum laid down by W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** this Court in the case in _**Raju S. Jethmalani’s case supra**_ , it was held that the writ petitioner therein cannot be prevented from putting up his property for other use, merely on the ground of antiquated and obsolete scheme, more so particularly since all the adjoining properties have been developed for putting up for colleges and schools, commercial buildings, and residential buildings and therefore it has been held therein that the petitioner therein cannot be denied permission for using his property for use. 9. The facts in this case are broadly similar to the facts held by this Court in the series of judgments mentioned herein above. Therefore it is ordered that there is no necessity for quashing the impugned orders as it has already been quashed by this Court in the previous round of litigations. For reasons not known to this Court, the respondent Thrikkakara Municipality has not complied with the directions issued by this Court in the previous round of writ proceedings initiated by the petitioners. 10. Hence it is ordered that the stand of respondent Thrikkakara Municipality to refuse consideration for grant of building permit is illegal and unreasonable, and no further reliance can be made on the town planning scheme pursuant to which the W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** structural plan has been framed as it has become rather antiquated and obsolete, and hence in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Raju S. Jethmalani’s case supra**_ , the applications of respective petitioner for grant of building permit should be considered on merits by the respondent Secretary of the Thrikkakara Municipality subject to strict compliance of the directions in the applicable Kerala Municipal Building Rules. 11. By virtue of the judgments issued by this Court in the previous round of writ proceedings mentioned herein above, the impugned rejection orders have already ben quashed and the applications of respective petitioners for grant of building permit shall stand remitted to the respondent Secretary to Thrikkakara Municipality for decision as per law as stated hereinabove. 12. Accordingly it is ordered that the respondent Secretary to Thrikkakara Municipality will immediately take up for consideration the applications of respective petitioners for grant of building permit , and should issue memos to each of the petitioners notifying them to produce any additional materials if so required, within a stipulated time, and it is for the petitioners to ensure that W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** such additional and supportive documents are also produced and placed on record before the 2[nd] respondent Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality. 13. Thereafter the respondent Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to these petitioners trough their authorized representative/counsel if any , and then should take a considered decision on te application for grant of building permit in accordance with the provisions contained in the applicable building rules without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and without citing the grounds of rejection dealt with in the impugned orders issued earlier which has already been quashed by this Court as mentioned herein above. 14. In view of the abovesaid directions, it is ordered that no further action is required by respondents 1& 2 on the applications submitted by the petitioners for zonal classification submitted in the year 2016 as mentioned herein above. 15. The petitioners will produce certified copy of this judgment along with copy of memorandum of this WP© before W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 **==> picture [24 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the 1[st] respondent Principal Secretary to Government in the Local Self Government Department as well as to the Secretary to Thrikkakara Municipality for information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 ..17.. ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.12020/2020** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2713/2014 DATED 13.08.2014 OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, THRIKKAKKARA IN THE NAME OF FIRST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2714/2014 DATED 13.08.2014 OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, THRIKKAKARA IN THE NAME OF SECOND PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.06.2019 IN RESPECT OF FIRST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.06.2019 IN RESPECT OF SECOND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY OF THE FIRST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY OF THE SECOND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD IN THE NAME OF FIRST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD IN THE NAME OF SECOND PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.10.2014 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT** W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 ..18.. |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS**| |---|---| ||**EVIDENCING THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S**| ||**PROPERTIES**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING**| ||**THE NATURE OF SURROUNDINGS PROPERTIES**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED**| ||**16.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**05.08.2015 IN WP(C) NO.22836/2015 OF**| ||**THIS HON'BLE COURT**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED**| ||**19.05.2016**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM A**| ||**SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT THROUGH 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE**| ||**3RD**<br>**RESPONDENT**<br>**EVIDENCING**<br>**THE**| ||**ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTS.P14 AND P15**| W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 ..19.. ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.11810/2020** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2400/2014 DATED 16.7.2014.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.6.2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE, OFFICER, KAKKANAD. EXHIBIT P3 RUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.3.2015 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE NATURE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.2.2015 IN WP(C) NO.3648/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.3.2016. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APOPLICATION IN FORM A SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT THROUGH 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.3.2016 ISSUED FROM OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT.** W.P. © Nos. 12020, 11810 & 11767 of 2020 ..20.. ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.11767/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1239/1993 DATED 8.7.1993 OF SRO, THRIKKAKARA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.6.2019 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION PLAN IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE NATURE OF SURROUNDINGS PROPERTIES. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.3.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.8846 OF 2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.03.2016. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM A SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH 3RD RESPONDENT.**