Rajan P.N. and N. Krishna Kurupp v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO. 10392 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 RAJAN P.N. AGED 61 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN PUTHAN VEEDU, RETIRED TEACHER, RESIDING AT PUTHAN VEEDU, PULPALLI P.O., WAYANAD, PIN – 673579.** - **2 N.KRISHNA KURUPP, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O C.N.NARAYANA KURUPP, RESIDING AT THANATHU VEEDU, PULPALLI P.O., WAYANAD, PIN – 673579.** **BY ADVS.** **MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN PRAVEEN K.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOMS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **3 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **4 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** 2 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 - **5 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O. ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006.** - **6 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O. ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006.** - **7 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVAWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673001.** - **8 SREE PULPALLY DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE PULPALLI SITHA LAVAKUSHA TEMPLE, P.O.PULPALLI, WAYANAD, PIN – 673579.** - **9 THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE CUM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE PULPALLI SITHA LAVAKUSHA TEMPLE, P.O.PULPALLI, WAYANAD, PIN – 673579.** - **10 PULPALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, P.O.PULPALLI, WAYANAD, PIN – 673579.** - **11 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PULPALLY POLICE STATION, P.O.PULPALLI, WAYANAD, PIN – 673579.** **BY ADVS.** - **R1 TO R4 AND R11 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN,** - **SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 TO R7 BY SRI** - **R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, STANDING COUNSEL, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** - **R8 AND R9 BY SMT.PRABHA R.MENON** - **R10 BY SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 15.06.2023, THE COURT ON 11.07.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## P.G. Ajithkumar, J. The petitioners filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue the following reliefs.- - (a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the entire records culminated in Ext.P2 and to quash the same; - (a1) Issue a writ of certiorarl or other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the entire records culminated in Ext.P9 and all proceedings pursuant thereto and to quash the same; - (a2) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 6[th] Respondent to restore possession of the property covered by Ext.P9 order to the 8[th] respondent temple, forthwith; - (b) To declare that the 9[th] Respondent has no right to continue as the Executive Officer of the 8[th] respondent Sree Pulpally Devaswom or to deal with the funds of the said Devaswom; - (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 6[th] respondent to depute an Executive Officer under the 5[th] respondent Malabar Devaswom Board in daily administration of the 8[th] respondent Sree Pulpally Devaswom, forthwith.” 4 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 2. The petitioners claim that they are the devotees of Pulpally Sree Lava-Kusha Temple. The 2[nd] petitioner is the former President of Sree Lava Kusha Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi. The petitioners would contend that the Temple had more than 14,000 acres of land, but now the Temple is in possession of only 20-22 acres. The Temple is situated in the property comprised in re-survey No.605. The property comprised in re-survey No.602 of Pulpally Village is situated adjoining the Temple premises. The 6[th] Respondent issued Ext.P9 order allowing respondent Nos.3 and 9 to lease out 73 cents of land comprised in re-survey No.602 to the 10[th] respondent-Pulpally Grama Panchayat for a period of 33 years. In Ext.P9 the description or identity of the said property are not mentioned. Attempt of respondent Nos.8 and 9 is to alienate the property belonging to the deity at their whims and fancies. When the 6[th] respondent published a notice regarding the proposal for leasing out such a property, the 2[nd] petitioner filed an objection. However, the 6[th] respondent, without considering such objections and giving an opportunity of being heard to the 2[nd] petitioner, issued Ext.P9 5 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 allowing respondent Nos.8 and 9 to lease out the property. The 10[th] respondent proposes to expand its bus stand making use of the said property, which would not enure any benefit to the Deity or Devaswom and therefore such a transfer of possession is illegal. Under the guise of the said order, the 10[th] respondent started to cut down valuable trees from the property. Therefore, the 2[nd] petitioner filed O.S.No.57 of 2023 before the Munsiff’s Court, Sulthan Bathery. The Commissioner appointed in that suit submitted a report regarding the state of affairs of the property. However, no order of injunction was granted by the Munsiff’s Court. In such a factual situation the petitioners seek to quash Exts. P2 and P9. 3. The 9[th] respondent is the hereditary trustee of the Temple. It is alleged that he was appointed as the Executive Officer, which is totally illegal. He has been continuing as such for quite a long period. He commits all sorts of misfeasance and misappropriation of the assets of the Temple. On those grounds the petitioners question appointment and continuance of the 9[th] respondent as the Executive Officer. 6 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 4. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 filed a counter-affidavit. It is contended that the administration of the Temple is done as per the scheme settled by the Deputy Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board. In 1982 the scheme was last modified. The 9[th] respondent was appointed as the hereditary trustee in 2004. Since the Temple was not in a sound financial condition, the 9[th] respondent was engaged to look after the affairs of the Temple. He was not appointed as the Executive Officer or even as a Honorary Executive Officer. It is totally incorrect that the affairs of the Temple are not administered in a proper way. The allegation of malpractice, irregularities and corruption are raised without any basis and bona fides. The Devaswom has in its possession 34 acres of land. There are encroachments on the properties of the Temple and litigations are pending in regard to such trespasses. Pulpally Bus Stand is established in a small extent of land. The 10[th] respondent requested the Devaswom to sell or lease out to them one acre of land for the expansion of the Bus Stand. After due deliberation, respondent Nos.8 and 9, decided to lease out 73 cents of land to the 10[th] respondent. Accordingly, permission 7 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 was sought from respondent Nos.6 for which application was submitted. After due consideration and giving opportunity of being heard to the persons having objection, Ext.P9 order was issued. In terms of that order, a memorandum of undertaking, Ext.R9(C) was entered into between respondent Nos.8 and 10. The rent agreed is Rs.5,25,600/- per year with an annual increase of 12%. That will increase the income of the Temple and therefore is beneficial to the Devaswom. Hence, these respondents seek to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. The 10[th] respondent also filed a counter-affidavit, wherein the necessity to have such a property for the expansion of the Bus Stand and the steps taken to issue Ext.P9 are explained. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 10[th] respondent-Grama Panchayat. 7. The 6[th] respondent on 21.10.2022 issued Ext.P2 public notice under Section 29(1) of the Hindu Religious and 8 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 (for short “HR&EC Act”) calling for objections, if any, to be submitted within thirty days, in regard to the proposal of the 8[th] respondentDevaswom to lease out 73 cents of its land to the 10[th] respondent-Pachayat. The precise proposal was to lease out 73 cents of land on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- per cent for a period of 33 years. It was stated in the notice that the 8[th] respondent-Devaswom proposed to construct a shopping complex adjoining the Bus Stand that will be established by the Panchayat, with 100 rooms. The Devaswom expects a monthly rent of Rs.7 lakhs by letting out such rooms. It was explained in Ext.P2 that if the land is so let out, there would be overall development in the locality and that will enure to the progress of the Temple. Ext.P2 was appended with a plan. 8. The petitioners would contend that an objection was submitted against leasing out of the land, a copy of which is Ext.P3, but the 6[th] respondent did not heed to consider the objections. It is further averred that since the 8[th] respondent started cutting down trees and it appeared that the 10[th] respondent had started preliminary works in the property in 9 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 question, the petitioners were constrained to approach Munsiff’s Court, Sulthan Bathery by filing O.S.No.57 of 2023. A police complaint was also said to have been submitted. Ext.P4 is a copy of the plaint in the said suit and Ext.P6 is a copy of the complaint submitted to the 11[th] respondentStation House Officer, Pulpally Police Station. 9. Ext.P1 is a copy of the Adangal Register, which shows that the Ooralan of Sree Pulpally Seetha Lavakusha Temple owns 37.70 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.602/3 of Pulpally Village. Respondents No.8 and 9 maintain that 73 cents of the said property is proposed to be leased out to the 10[th] respondent. 10. On 28.12.2022, the 6[th] respondent had issued Ext.P9 order allowing the 8[th] respondent to lease out the aforesaid 73 cents of land to the 10[th] respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that leasing out such a land is not at all beneficial to the Deity or Devaswom and the 9[th] respondent-Executive Officer took such a step, which is totally prejudicial to the Devaswom. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board 10 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 would submit that after considering every aspect of the matter, the Commissioner had accorded permission as per Ext.P9 order. The allegation of the petitioners that they, despite submitting a written objection, were not given an opportunity of being heard is stated to be incorrect. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board pointed out that notice was given for personal hearing, but the petitioners did not turn up and dehors their absence, the objections raised were considered in detail before according sanction as per Ext.P9. 11. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.8 and 9 would submit that the rate of rent was fixed taking into account all the relevant factors and the rent fixed is quite reasonable. It is pointed out that the Devaswom had planted rubber trees in a major portion of the properties in its possession, in order to augment the income of the Temple, but the plantations are not that economic now. If 73 cents of land is let out, that will enure not only a good income, but also will help to have development to the Temple. 12. The allegation of the petitioners that without even identifying and demarcating the property, the 9[th] respondent 11 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 obtained permission from the 6[th] respondent to lease out 73 cents of land and that will result in handing over possession of property, which may be required for the ceremonies in the Temple. This allegation is refuted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9 by pointing out the demarcation is given in the plan attached to Ext.P2 notice. The files leading to Ext.P9 were produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board. The plan available in the said file is also placed reliance on by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.8 and 9 to substantiate the contention that the 73 cents of land has been clearly earmarked and that property is situated away from the Temple premises. 13. The fact that the petitioners were not personally heard by the 6[th] respondent is evident from Ext.P9 itself. The reasons thereof, the aspects considered by the 6[th] respondent and the reasons for his conclusions are stated in the penultimate paragraph of Ext.P9. The said paragraph as well as the last paragraph of Ext.P9 are extracted below:- “Hearing in the matter was scheduled on 23.11.2022 and this was specified in the notice issued inviting 12 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 suggestions and objections. Sri. N.Krishnakurup submitted objections but he was not attended in the hearing procedures despite Objections of N.Krishnakurup and contentions of the trustee verified. It is obvious that the proposed plan of development of bus stand using with the land of Pulpally Devaswom by the Grama panchayath will bring overall development of basic infrastructure of Pulpally town and thereby the Devaswom will be beneficiary of that development. On verifying the report of Assistant Commissioner and statement of trustee it can be say that the proposed shopping complex suggested by the trustee of Pulpally Devaswom will become a major source of income to the temple. The objections are mere allegations without any basis. It is not apparent from objections that how the proposed lease will affect the Devaswom adversely. Moreover, the objections are without bonafide intentions and it cannot be promoted considering the best interest of the Devaswom. Under the circumstances considering the application from the trustee and the report of Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode and the decision of Malabar Devaswom Board sanction is hereby accorded to lease the 73 cents of land of Pulpally village and situated in RS. No. 602/3 (more particularly described in the schedule below) for a period of 33 years to Grama panchayath, Pulpally for Rs.600/- per cent as monthly rent. The agreement with Grama panchayath should be 13 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 submitted before the Malabar Devaswom Board for approval.” 14. While the petitioners allege that the 2[nd] petitioner, although waited for a whole day in the office, he was denied the opportunity of being heard with an ulterior motive is stoutly denied by the 6[th] respondent. It is explained that the 2[nd] petitioner did not turn up on the date to which the hearing was postponed. 15. The essential question, however, is whether leasing out of such a property of the 8[th] respondent-Devaswom is beneficial to the Devaswom. The ancillary questions are whether the 6[th] respondent followed the procedure and satisfied himself of the requirements of Section 29 of the HR&CE Act before issuing Ext.P9. 16. 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 14 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by 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 fences 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. 17. 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 15 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 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 parents patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when there ia a complaint about the loss of properties of the Temple, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in appropriate proceedings. ## 18. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka** **Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. 16 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 19. In **Behari Lal v. Thakur Radhaballabh Jiu [AIR 1961 All. 73]** , it was held, “the sale of an old house belonging to an endowment which was not in a dilapidated condition but which required extensive repairs was neither a prudent transaction nor for the benefit of the estate and that it was not binding on the institution. The learned Author quoted at page 282, after referring to various decisions that was not a benefit to the estate to merely change the investment with a view to obtaining a somewhat increased yield". In the said case, no attempt has been made to prove that transaction was for the benefit of the estate. It has come in evidence that the Devaswom has large extent of properties. The mere fact that portion of the property is hilly and rocky area does not mean that the property has to be sold. Further, there is evidence to show that the Devaswom has got surplus funds. The court further held that in any event, the price obtained was very low and hence, the sale could not be held to be beneficial to the endowment. 20. The 6[th] respondent-Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board and the 9[th] respondent are the trustees as 17 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 far as Temple lands are concerned. Lands of the Temple shall always remain with the Temple and the public purpose theory shall not be invoked in cases of Temple lands over which the interest of the Deity and devotees shall alone prevail. When respondents No. 9 decided to lease out 73 cents of the Temple property, the whole consideration could only be the benefit of the Devaswom and that definitely involves the interest of the devotees of the Temple. By leasing out such a land to the Panchayat for the expansion of the Bus Stand, the local area might be developed and that may cater to the benefit of the general public also. It is true that in Ext.P9 the Commissioner observed that on account of establishing Bus Stand in the property in question, overall basic infrastructure of Pulpally Town would be developed and if a shopping complex as proposed is established by the Devaswom that will enhance the prospects of getting more income to the Devaswom. 21. But, nothing has been placed on record to show that respondents No.8 and 9 did have an objective assessment and study to know whether establishment of such a shopping complex is profitable and feasible. There is also 18 ## W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 nothing on record to show that the rate of rent fixed for the land being leased out is on the basis of its market value. 22. A Division Bench of this Court in **T.Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (4) KLT 798]** held that in view of the law laid down by this Court in **Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642 : 2022:KER:6409]** , relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara** **[(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. The action of the Board as a trustee cannot be equated to that of mere landlord. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Board would be subserved only if income is generated. 23. In **T. Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798]** , the Division Bench noticed that the major source of revenue of 19 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 the Cochin Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples and also the rental income generated from the buildings owned by the respective Devaswoms. Therefore, while dealing with the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said building. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by ensuring that the lease rental or licence fee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms is not lower than the prevailing market rent. The action of the Board in demanding lease rental or licence fee for the buildings owned by the Devaswoms taking into consideration the prevailing market rent cannot be termed as an action of the Board demanding - exhorbitant or rack rent, since, while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. 20 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 24. The aforesaid principle is equally applicable in the case of properties, including lands owned by the Temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board also. Respondents No.8 and 9 did not place anything on record to show how the rent was assessed. In the light of the law laid down in **T.Krishnakumar [2022 (4) KLT 798]** it is the inviolable obligation of respondents No. 8 and 9 and also the Board that the rate of rent fixed is proper. It is not able to see from the materials on record that the said respondents did an objective assessment regarding the market rent the property in question can fetch. Similarly it is not able to see from the materials that the 6[th] respondent applied mind and ensured that the rent fixed is proper. The aforementioned reasons certainly vitiates Ext.P9 and therefore it is liable to be quashed. We make it clear that this shall not be a bar for taking a fresh decision in the matter strictly in accordance with the law and directions issued by this Court. If a fresh proceedings in the matter is initiated, the petitioners shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In view of the above, we are 21 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 leaving open the legal and factual contentions of the parties in the matter. 25. The petitioners challenged appointment of the 9[th] respondent as the Executive Officer. But, they did not produce any materials in order to substantiate their contention relating to legality or otherwise of the appointment of the 9[th] respondent. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to consider the said plea of the petitioners. 26. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part and Ext.P9 is quashed. If respondents No.8 and 9 pursue further the proposal of leasing out the land in question, it is for the 6[th] respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter, keeping in mind the observations made hereinbefore. The legal and factual contentions of both sides are left open. The relief of relieving the 9[th] respondent of the duties of the Executive Officer of Sree Pulapply Seetha Lava-Kusha Temple is declined for the aforesaid reason. **==> picture [412 x 32] intentionally omitted <==** 22 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 The Registrar (Judicial) to return the files kept in the safe custody to the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 23 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10392/2023** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADANGAL EXTRACT OF RESURVEY NO.602/3 OF PULPALLY VILLAGE OF SULATHAN BATHERY TALUK.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.J53623/2022/MDB DATED 21-10-2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 2111-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 09- 032023 IN O.S. NO.57 OF 2023 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-09-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND ANOTHER TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DATED 17.03.2023 BEFORE THE 11TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17-032023 ISSUED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT TO PULPALLY SEETHA LAVA KUSHA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TEMPLE PROPERTY FROM WHERE THE TREES ARE CUT AND ATTEMPTED LEVELING OF LAND MADE ON 20-03-2023** - **EXHIBIT P9** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-122022 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.J5-3623/2022 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** 24 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND CONSISTING OF THE TEMPLE AND THE EXISTING BUS STAND.** ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R9A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30-112022 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT INTIMATING THE HEARING TO BE ON 14-12-2022** **EXHIBIT R9B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-122022 OF THE COMMISSIONER** **EXHIBIT R9C** **TRUE COPY OF THE M.O.U. DATED 14-022023** **EXHIBIT R9D TRUE COPY OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT RESPONSE DATED 14-12-2022 TO EXHIBIT P2 NOTICE** **EXHIBIT R9E TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED 11-01-2021** - **EXHIBIT R 10 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1/1 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 12.01.2022** - **EXHIBIT R 10 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE NO. S.C.3-118/2022 DATED 17.01.2022 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT R 10 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.J53623/2022 DATED 28.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT R 10 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE MOU ENTERED BETWEEN SREE PULPALLY MURUKANAMAR DEVASWOM TRUSTEE AND THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY** - **EXHIBIT R 10 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE NO.REF.21/17 DATED 10.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE SREE PULPALLY MURUKANAMAR DEVASWOM TRUSTEE.** 25 W.P.(C) No.10392 of 2023 **EXHIBIT R 10 (F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT, PULPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH**