Sharaf Arts and Science College Kaithakkad v State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHARAF ART AND SCIENCE COLLEGE KAITHAKKAD P.O, CHERUVATHOOR VIA, PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, RUN BY KIDMATH ORGANISATION OF PADNE, REG NO .247/1993, PADNE P. O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT -671312. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.P. ABDUL MUTHALIB.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,MUSEUM JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION,KASARAGOD-671121. 4 TAHSILDAR HOSDURG TALUK,HOSDURG.P.O,KASARAGOD DISTRICT671312.** ::2:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** - **5 KANNUR UNIVERSITY KANNUR.P.O,PIN-670111,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** - **6 P.K.C.MUHAMMED HAJI KOTTAYANTHAR,.PADNE.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671123.** - **7 SHARAF ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE COMMITTEE REG NO.792/2006 CHOKKIKANDAM,PADNE.P.O,KASARAGOD DISTRICT671312.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR SRI.M.SASINDRAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::3:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . -------------------- W.P(C).No.36440 Of 2018 --------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of January, 2019. **J U D G M E N T** ## **The prayers in the above Writ Petition** ## **(Civil) are as follows:** _“i) To issue a writ of certiorari and other appropriate order or direction to quash Exhibit-P33, P37 and P41 proceedings issued by Respondents 4, 3 and 2 respectively._ _ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 5[th] Respondent to clarify that the affiliation is reviewed in favour of Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee which is a governing Committee constituted by KOP which is registered as per Exhibit-P1 and not the society registered under Exhibit-P13, and_ _iii) To grant such other reliefs as are just and proper in the nature of the case.”_ ## **2. Heard Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel** **for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for** **respondents 1 to 4, Sri.M.Sasindran, learned** **Standing Counsel for the Kannur University appearing for the 5[th] respondent, Sri.D.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 6[th]** ::4:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **respondent and Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent.** **3. Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of instructions of his party that the petitioner is not pressing relief No.(ii) in the Writ Petition in view of Ext.P-40 judgment dated 7.8.2018 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1065/2018 [arising out of Ext.P-38 judgment dated 11.12.2017 in W.P(C).No. 32293/2015].** **4. Relief No.(i) in the Writ Petition is for the issuance of writ of certiorari and other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext.P-33, P-37 and P-41 proceedings issued by respondents 4, 3 and 2 respectively, whereby they have rejected the plea of the petitioner for acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the subject property from him and a decision has been rendered by them that as of now basic land tax in respect of the subject property should be** ::5:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **accepted from the contesting 7[th] respondent. In this regard, it is relevant to bear in mind that the impugned Ext.P-33 & P-37 orders were already unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in Ext.P-38 W.P(C).No.32293/2015 as Exts.P-3 & P-13 therein. This Court as per Ext.P-38 judgment dated 11.12.2017 had dismissed W.P.(C).No. 32293/2015 and has thereby refused to interfere with the impugned proceedings as per Exts.P-3 & P-13 therein (Exts.P-33 & P-37 herein). This Court in Ext.P-38 judgment found that the interim orders of the civil court produced as Exts.P-15 & P-16 herein [Exts.P-1 & P-2 in W.P(C).No.32293/2015] are interlocutory orders and the civil suit has not attained any finality and hence the petitioner cannot press into service those interlocutory orders of the civil court for deciding the issues raised before this Court in that Writ Petition. This Court has thus observed that the petitioner is not entitled to** ::6:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **make any challenge as against Exts.P-33 & P-37 herein and observed that “** _**…since suit proceedings are pending substantially similar to the issues raised in this writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition, at this stage of the proceedings**_ **”. One of the grounds on the basis of which this Court in Ext.P-38 judgment had declined to interfere was that “....** _**if any interference is made at this stage of the proceedings in a writ petition, it will materially affect the adjudication pending in the suit proceedings**_ **.”** **5. Later, Ext.P-38 judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.32293/2015 was challenged by the petitioner by filing intra court appeal as W.A.No.1065/2018. The Division Bench, as per Ext.P-40 judgment rendered on 17.8.2018 had dismissed the said Writ Appeal and** ::7:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **has thereby confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge as rendered in Ext.P-38 W.P.(C).No. 32293/2015. It has been inter alia observed by the Division Bench in Ext.P-40 judgment that “......** _**the writ court correctly declined to interfere, as the very same issue is being adjudicated in the civil court**_ **.” However, the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P-40 judgment had also taken note of the factual development that the petitioner had filed revision petition before the 2[nd] respondentCommissioner for Land Revenue to challenge the impugned Exts.P-33 & P-37 proceedings rendered by the Tahsildar and the District Collector. In view of the said remedy availed by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that it is for the petitioner to prosecute the said revisional remedy before the revisional authority concerned and those issues could be best decided by the said revisional authority in those proceedings.** ::8:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **6. Now the 2[nd] respondent-Commissioner for Land Revenue, as revisional authority, has passed the impugned Ext.P-41 proceedings dated 28.6.2018 by dismissing the said revision petition instituted by the petitioner and thereby confirmed the correctness of the impugned Exts.P-33 & P-37 orders. In this connection it is appropriate to bear in mind that the respondent-District Collector in the impugned Ext.P-37 appellate order has taken note of the factual aspects that as per the registered document Nos.1534/2003, 1550/2003, 1643/2003 and 1644/2003 of S.R.O., Trikaripur, the transaction** ## **of land is in the name as follows:** **"** ഹഹഹസ **സ** ർഗസ തഹലകസ പടന ഗഹമമ ആസഹനമഹകക ഓഫകസസ ൊ ൊ ൂ ്ന ൊ ം ൊ ൊ ്കി ്കി സഹപകച പവർതനമ നടതക വരന ഷറഫസ ആർട **സ** സ & സയൻസസ ൊ ്കി ്ച ്ര ്ത ം ്ത്കി ു ്ന കകഹ ൊ കള േ ജക ്കി നസ കവണക ്കി കമൽ പറഞ ്ഞ കകഹ ൊ കള േ ജസ കമക ്കി റക ്കി യ ു ഹട ഇകപഹ ൊ ഴഹത ്ത പ ്ര സക ്കി ഡനസ " **That there is no mention of Kidmath Organisation of Padne (KOP), in those documents, which the writ petition claims to represent. This was one of the crucial aspect which has led the** ::9:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **respondent-Tahsildar and the respondent-District Collector in taking the view in the impugned Exts.P-33 & P-37 proceedings that the basic land tax therefore should be accepted from the 7[th] respondent, who is claiming to represent the “** _**Sharaf Arts & Science College Committee**_ **”. Whereas the claim of the petitioner is that the property is owned for and on behalf of the “** _**Sharaf Arts & Science College**_ **”, etc. A perusal of the impugned Ext.P-41 revisional order passed by the 2[nd] respondent-Commissioner for Land Revenue would also disclose that as per the reports of the competent revenue officials concerned, which are made available for perusal to he revisional authority, it was borne out that the subject property in question was purchased by the then President of the College Committee and that no documents whatsoever has been produced to establish that the KOP (Kidmath Organisation of Padne), which the petitioner claims to represent** ::10:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **has ownership rights over the subject property, etc. In the operative portion of Ext.P-41 order also, it is mentioned that the abovesaid title deeds have been registered in the name of the “** _**Sharaf Arts & Science College Committee through its President/General Secretary**_ **” and that the documents does not show that the KOP (Kidmath Organisation of Padne) represented by the petitioner is having rights over the subject property for the purpose of acceptance of basic land tax. On this basis, the 2[nd] respondent-Commissioner for Land Revenue has held that since the scheme of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 mandate acceptance of basic land tax from the land holder concerned. The plea of the petitioner that land tax should be accepted from him cannot be countenanced and there is no illegality and impropriety in the view taken by the respondent-Tahsildar and the respondentDistrict Collector in the impugned Ext.P-33** ::11:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **original order and Ext.P-37 appellate order that basic land tax should be accepted from the 7[th] respondent and not from the petitioner, etc. Further very guardedly the 2[nd] respondentCommissioner for Land Revenue also concluded in Ext.P-41 that since the issues relating to administration, control and ownership in respect of College Committee are pending in civil suit, there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned Exts.P-33 & P-37 orders until the issues are finally resolved by the civil court concerned.** **7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances disclosed in this petition and having extensively hearing the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the said factual reasonings highlighted by the 2[nd] respondent** **- Commissioner for Land Revenue in Ext.P-41 proceedings cannot be said to be unreasonable and improper. Merely because a different view is** ::12:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **plausible is not a ground for this Court to exercise powers of judicial review to interfere with the factual appreciation made by the competent revenue officials concerned, which has led to Exts.P-33 & P-37 orders and Ext.P-41 revisional order. However, this is not the end of the road for the petitioner. More so, particularly, in view of the specific observation made by the 2[nd] respondent-Commissioner for Land Revenue in the concluding portion of Ext.P-41 that the abovesaid decision as per Ext.P-41 for the arrangement of acceptance of basic land tax is so taken only till the issues are thrashed out by the civil court concerned. The said view of the 2[nd] respondent-Commissioner for Land Revenue reflected in the concluding portion of Ext.P-41 proceedings is fully supported by the specific provision contained in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, which clearly mandates that summary enquiry and decision thereon as conceived** ::13:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **in the Transfer of Registry Rules is only an fiscal arrangement so as to ensure that land revenue is collected from the land holder or registered land holder as understood in Sec.3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions. The Apex Court and various High Courts have held, as in** _**Sawarni v. Inder Kaur**_ **, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2823, that grant of mutation by itself does not create or extinguish title and nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land tax to the authorities concerned, etc. Therefore, as and when the civil court renders conclusive judicial verdicts regarding the dispute between the parties on issues of ownership, title and other related issues and if those issues are resolved in favour of the petitioner, then it goes without saying that the petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate application before the respondent-Tahsildar concerned for revising the** ::14:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **mutation granted in favour of the 7[th] respondent as conceived under Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules. In such a case, it is for the mutation granting authority concerned to issue notice to the parties concerned including the affected party and then take a decision thereon on the basis of such conclusion of the verdicts of civil court on the pertinent issues.** **8. Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of instructions of his party that the petitioner has now been advised that, if necessary, a separate suit could be instituted before the competent civil court concerned seeking declaration of title and also to impugn the abovesaid decisions of the competent revenue authority in the matter of acceptance of basic land tax and also for appropriate orders in the matter of acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the said property from the petitioner, etc., and after arraying necessary parties as** ::15:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **defendants, including the 7[th] respondent herein, and that petitioner's liberty in that regard may be reserved. As regards the other submission, there is no necessity for this Court to reserve such liberty because such liberty is enshrined in the scheme of things for acceptance of basic land tax. More so, the decision taken for mutation in favour of the 7[th] respondent would be subject to revision as conceived in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, depending upon the verdicts of the civil court concerned. However to make the matter beyond the pale of any controversy, it is ordered and declared that if any such suit is filed by the petitioner after arraying the necessary parties and also seeking appropriate reliefs as are necessary, then it is for the civil court concerned to independently decide those issues untrammelled by any of the observations and findings made in this judgment. In the light of these** ::16:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **aspects, the main prayer sought for by the petitioner for interfering with the impugned Exts.P-33, P-37 and P-41 proceedings will stand declined.** **With these observations and directions, and with the abovesaid liberty to the petitioner, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed.** **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::17:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ::18:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ALONG WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION DATED 02.06.1993** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OFFICE BEARERS FOR THE YEAR 2002-2003** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE C0PY OF THE LIST OF OFFICE BEARERD FOR THE YEAR 2003-2004 WHICH IS FILED ON 10.05.2005** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2002** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.02.2003** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.02.2003** **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED FOR 2.675 ACRE OF PROPERTY ITS SURVEY NO.568/1 NUMBERED AS 1534/03 DATED 05.05.2003.** **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED FOR 1550 ACRE OF PROPERTY ITS SURVEY NOI.568/1 NUMBERED AS 1550/03 DATED 06.05.2003.** **EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED FOR 2.22 ACRES OF PROPERTY ITS SURVEY NO.550/1 NUMBERED AS 1643/03 DATED 09.05.2003** **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.2.22 ACRES OF PROPERTY ITS SURVEY NO.550/1 NUMBERED AS 1644/03 DATED 09.05.2003** **EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.12.2003** **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2004** ::19:: |**WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018**|| |---|---| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF**| ||**ASSOCIATION OF SHARAF ARTS AND SCIENCE**| ||**COLLEGE COMMITTEE] DATED 11.10.2006**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER**| ||**NO.ACAD/A2/3863/2005 ISSUED BY THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2006**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY**| ||**THE MUNSIFF COURT HOSDURG IN**| ||**I.A.NO.2979/2006 IN OS NO.329/2006**| ||**DATED 10.01.2017**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY**| ||**THE MUNSIFF COURT,HOSDURG DATED**| ||**27.11.2008**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER**| ||**NO.ACAD/A2/FG/35769/04**<br>**DATED**| ||**27.11.2008**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**2.06.2008**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER**| ||**NO.ACAD/A2/FG/.3569/04 DATED 13.5.2008**| |**EXHIBIT P20**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**03.01.2009**| |**EXHIBIT P21**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT**| ||**RECEIPT DATED 03.01.2009**| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER**| ||**NO.ACAD/A2/SASC/3863/05**<br>**DATED**| ||**24.11.2008**| |**EXHIBIT P23**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**31.12.2008**| |**EXHIBIT P24**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**31.5.2011**| |**EXHIBIT P25**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**22.8.2012**| ::20:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** **EXHIBIT P26 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.11.2014 EXHIBIT P27 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,CHERUVATHUR DATED 20.05.2015 EXHIBIT P28 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 'NIL' EXHIBIT P29 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 28.05.2015. EXHIBIT P30 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACAD/A2/SASC/3863/05.V0L.II ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.05.2015 EXHIBIT P31 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.14649/B3/15/H.EDN ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 02.07.2015. EXHIBIT P32 TTHE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.ACAD/A2/1359/96 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2015 EXHIBIT P33 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03.10.2015. EXHIBIT P34 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER,DATED 29.03.2016 EXHIBIT P35 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.03.2016 EXHIBIT P36 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESOPNDENT DATED 11.04.2016 EXHIBIT P37 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 12.07.2016 EXHIBIT P38 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.32293/2015 DATED 11.12.2017** **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** ::21:: **EXHIBIT P39 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.832/2017 IN O.S NOI.241/2008 EXHIBIT P40 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1065/2018 DATED 17.08.2015 EXHIBIT P41 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.B8.28888/16 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.06.2018 EXHIBIT P42 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.24401/2018 DATED 26.07.2018 EXHIBIT P43 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NOI.ACAD/A2/AFFI-FEE/2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.08.2018 EXHIBIT P44 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WP(C)NO.24401/2018 DATED 07.09.2018. EXHIBIT P-45 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY SRI.M.C.IBRAHIMKUTTY DATED 10.12.2018. EXT.P-46 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY SRI.P.K.C.UMERALI DATED 10.12.2018. EXHIBIT P-47 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY SRI.A.M.ABDUL NAZIR DATED 10.12.2018. EXHIBIT P-48 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 7.1.2012. EXHIBIT P-49 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.4.2012.** **EXHIBIT P-50 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.6.2014.** **EXHIBIT P-51 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.4.2015.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** ::22:: **WP(C).No. 36440 of 2018** EXT.R-7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.6.2018 IN WPC.NO.20750 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.R-7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.7.2018 IN WA.1409 OF 2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.R-7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18.10.2002. EXT.R-7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 11.10.2002. EXT.R-7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF GOVERNING BODY DATED 26.12.2002. EXT.R-7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF GOVERNING BODY DATED 13.8.2006. EXT.R-7(g) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF GENERAL BODY DATED 1.10.2006. EXT.R-7(h) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEEDS NOS.524 OF 2003 OF SRO, TRIKKARIPUR. EXT.R-7(i) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEEDS NOS.525 OF 2003 OF SRO, TRIKKARIPUR. EXT.R-7(j) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 7.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PILICODE. EXT.R-7(k) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 7.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PILICODE VILLAGE. EXT.R-7(l) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 9.1.2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATHUR. EXT.R-7(m) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVATHUR. EXT.R-7(n) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R-7(o) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.9.2018 IN WPC.NO.28955 OF 2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.R-7(p) TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST 3 PAGES OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MINUTES BOOK.