High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions to district authori...

Skyline Builders and Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Village Officer, Puzhathi Village Office; Zonal Officer, Kannur Municipal Corporation (Puzhathi Zone); District Collector, Kannur; Addl. R4 (Edacherry Skyline Flat Virudha Janakeeya Committee) represented by its Convener Alakkal Jayandran; Addl. R5 Kannur Municipal Corporation; Addl. R6 Chief Town Planner (Vigilance), Dept. of Town and Country Planning; and along with WP(C).8050/2016(E) and WP(C).2087/2017

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).8050/2016(E); WP(C).2087/2017

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Muhamed Mustaque
Judgment Date
2020-09-22
Court Decision / Holding
The petitions are disposed of with directions: (i) The District Collector shall examine Ext.P13 filed in WP(C).8050/2016 under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, after giving notice to the petitioner within two months; (ii) If the District Collector allows the application under Clause 6, the Zonal Officer Kannur Corporation is to consider renewal of the building permit after hearing the petitioner and 4th respondent without further delay.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions to district authorities to process the pre-2017 KLU Rule 6 application and to renew the building permit if allowed after hearing.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Skyline Builders and Developers India Pvt. Ltd.

Respondents

  • Village Officer, Puzhathi Village Office, Kannur
  • Zonal Officer, Kannur Municipal Corporation, Puzhathi Zone
  • District Collector, Kannur
  • Edacherry Skyline Flat Virudha Janakeeya Committee (Addl. R4), represented by its Convener Alakkal Jayandran
  • Kannur Municipal Corporation (Addl. R5), represented by its Secretary
  • Chief Town Planner (Vigilance), Department of Town and Country Planning, Thiruvananthapuram (Addl. R6)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K. I. Mayankutty Mather
  • • Jose Joseph (Chemplayil)
  • • P. Rahul
  • • Smt. S. Ambily

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K.K. Chandran Pillai (Sr.)
  • • Smt. S. Ambily
  • • Smt. Meena M. John (SC)
  • • Sri K.J. Muhammed Anzar (SPL GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitions challenge stop memos and the non-renewal of a building permit issued for constructing an apartment block on Survey No.37/1, Puzhathi, Kannur, by Skyline Builders. The land had been converted from agricultural use prior to 2008 and was not listed in the Paddy Land Data Bank as ‘paddy land.’ The petition argued that after abrogation of Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the proper path to obtaining non-agricultural use was under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU Order), or via Section 27A provisions; subsequently amended laws were not to bar consideration under Clause 6 for pre-amendment applications filed before 30.12.2017. The court discussed precedents (Geo Peter, Fr. Jose Uppani, LLMC) to hold that pre-27A cases concerning converted land should be governed by Clause 6, and that the District Collector must assess the Ext.P13 application under Clause 6, with hearing, before renewal. The judgment directs processing of the application and, if allowed, renewal of the building permit with due regard to land extent. The petitions are disposed with directions to proceed under Clause 6 and hear the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Section 3AKerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that after abrogation of Section 3A, the application for change of user filed on 11.02.2016 should be treated under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, since the land was converted before 12.08.2008 and the land was not notified as paddy land. They contend that Section 3A’s removal removes the stricter regime and that the 27A amendments apply only to post-2008 notifications; the District Collector should consider Ext.P13 under Clause 6 with proper notice and hearing, and renewal should be allowed if the land extent is corrected. They also submit that the earlier 58.66 cents possession remains valid and the zoning authority cannot force harsher proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the land was not notified as paddy land in the Data Bank and is a converted land; they argue that the impugned actions were based on existing regulatory regimes, including the 2008 Act and subsequent amendments. They emphasize that the pre-amendment KLU provisions and the entitlements under Clause 6 must be interpreted in light of the amended Act (27A) and that any regularization requires compliance with the updated regime, which includes stricter processes. They also challenge the accuracy of extent statements and the need to protect Paddy Land/Wetland status.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer2019 (3) KLT 838PositiveCited to support the proposition that where land was converted before 12.08.2008 and a Rule 6(2) KLU Order application was filed before 30.12.2017, the case should be considered under Rule 6(2) rather than the amended provisions including S.27A.
Fr. Jose Uppani v. District Collector2020 (3) KLT 492PositiveReferenced as confirming the approach that pre-amendment applications under Rule 6(2) should be treated under the original framework when the appropriate conditions are met.
LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma2015(2) KLT 516 (DB)PositiveCited for the principle that pre-27A matters and maintenance of Rule 6(2) KLU applications before 30.12.2017 can be legally entertained, potentially under the Kerala Land Tax Act provisions for fresh assessment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Skyline Builders and Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Village Officer, Puzhathi Village Office; Zonal Officer, Kannur Municipal Corporation (Puzhathi Zone); District Collector, Kannur; Addl. R4 (Edacherry Skyline Flat Virudha Janakeeya Committee) represented by its Convener Alakkal Jayandran; Addl. R5 Kannur Municipal Corporation; Addl. R6 Chief Town Planner (Vigilance), Dept. of Town and Country Planning; and along with WP(C).8050/2016(E) and WP(C).2087/2017 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.8050 OF 2016(E)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SKYLINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., SKYLINE HOUSE, N.H. BYPASS, NEAR EMC HOSPITAL, VENNALA P.O., COCHIN - 682 028, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL) SRI.P.RAHUL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 VILLAGE OFFICER, PUZHATHI VILLAGE OFFICE, KANNUR - 670 005.** - **2 ZONAL OFFICER, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PUZHATHI ZONE, KAKKAD P.O., KANNUR-670 002.** - **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 001.** - **4 ADDL. R4. EDACHERRY SKYLINE FLAT VIRUDHA JANAKEEYA COMMITTEE, EDACHERRY P.O., PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR-670 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, ALAKKAL JAYANDRAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. A.C.NARAYANAN.** **(ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/10/2016 IN IA 16171/2016)** - **5 ADDL. R5. KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR.** - **6 ADDL. R6. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER (VIGILANCE), DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **(ADDITIONAL R5 AND R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/10/2016 IN IA 16436/16)** [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 2 **BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBILY BY ADV. SRI.ABILASH THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SR. BY ADV. SMT.P.ELSAMMA JOSEPH BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL BY ADV. SRI.K.V.KRISHNAKUMAR BY ADV. SMT.MEENA.M.JOHN,SC, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION** **ADV. SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR SPL GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.09.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).2087/2017(I), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942** **WP(C).No.2087 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **SKYLINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD SKYLINE HOUSE, N.H.BYPASS, NEAR EMC HOSPITAL, VENNALA P.O, COCHIN-682 028, REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR - K.V.ABDUL AZEEZ** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.RAHUL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR -670 005. 2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KANNUR -670 001. 3 ZONAL OFFICER KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PUZHATHI ZONE, KAKKAD P.O., KANNUR -670 002. 4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR -670 001. 5 VILLAGE OFFICER PUZHATHI VILLAGE OFFICE, KANNUR -670 005. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBILY BY ADV. SMT.MEENA.M.JOHN, SC, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ADV. SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR SPL GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.09.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).8050/2016(E), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 4 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 22nd day of September 2020** The petitioner is a builder. The petitioner approached this Court challenging a stop memo issued by the Village Officer, Puzhathi as well as the Zonal Officer of Kannur Municipal Corporation. 2. The petitioner obtained a building permit from Puzhathi Grama Panchayat to undertake the construction of an apartment building in Survey No.37/1 of Puzhathi 6llage, Kannur Taluk on 16.12.2014. 3. The Village Officer, Puzhathi Village Office issued a stop memo on 22.07.2015 stating that the petitioner is undertaking the construction in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 4. Similarly the Zonal Officer, Kannur Municipal Corporation by an order dated 04.01.2016 proposed to revoke the building permit issued to the petitioner stating that the land in question is a paddy land and the petitioner had only shown 58.66 cents of land out of 125.25 cents of land belonged to them. 5. When the building permit was obtained by the petitioner, the land was situated within Puzhathi Grama Panchayat which later [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 5 ## merged with Kannur Municipal Corporation. 6. The learned Government Pleader as well as the objector to the construction fairly submitted before this Court that the land is not included as a paddy land in the Data Bank. It is a converted land. 7. Challenging stop memo, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.8050/2016. The petitioner filed another WP(C) No.2087/2017 as the Kannur Municipal Corporation refused to renew the building permit. 8. The petitioner had approached the District Collector on 11.02.2016 with an application to regularize the land. This application was submitted by invoking under Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. No decision was taken thereon by the District Collector. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having submitted the application for change of user on 11.02.2016. This may be treated as an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, in the light of fact that Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act has been abrogated subsequently. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Zonal Officer of the Corporation had passed the [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 6 impugned order without referring to the fact that the petitioner is having only 58.66 cents with them after assigning the remaining land. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the Corporation as well as the additional 4[th] respondent in WP(C) 8050/2016 who is objecting to the renewal of the building. 11. Purport of the Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order is to enable holder of a land which was used for cultivating crops to utilize the land for other purposes by obtaining order from the Collector. Section 3 A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act was introduced to Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is to regularize or convert such land on payment of certain amount. On promulgation of Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, the power of Collector under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order other than through Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is taken away. However, the State has chosen to abrogate Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. In such circumstances, such application has to be treated as an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. 12. Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 7 again underwent amendment by incorporating Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. This would enable the holder of the land to utilize the land for other purpose by applying to the Revenue Divisional Officer and making payments referred therein. It is to be noted that Sections 3A as well as 27 A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act are in respect of land which was not notified as a paddy or wet land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. This provisions would apply in respect of the land which was converted before 12.08.2008 the date on which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act came into force. 13. This Court in _**Fr. Jose Uppani vs. District Collector**_ [2020 (3) KLT 492] after referring to various pronouncement of this Court in ## paragraph 7 held as follows:- “In that regard, it has been held therein that it is well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2019 (3) KLT 838) that where the subject property has been converted as 'garden land' or 'purayidom' prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act) and where the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 has been preferred by the party concerned for conversion of the subject property on the basis of that rule, prior to [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 8 30.12.2017, which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act which has introduced S.27A thereof, then such a party is entitled to get his case considered strictly in terms of the provisions contained in Rule (2) of the KLU Order, 1967 and in such a case, the respondents do not have the jurisdiction or competence to stipulate that the said party should undergo the rigorous proceedings in terms of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced S.27A thereof and though in such a case, where the party has filed the requisite KLU application before 30.12.2017, then he or she cannot be compelled to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the provisions of S.27A and the amended provisions of the Rules. Accordingly, this Court has quashed the said impugned condition No.4 in Ext.P1. Thus now petitioner has obtained the requisite permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order for conversion of the subject property as 'garden land' or 'purayidom' and for its use for any nonagricultural purposes. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment has also specifically directed that such a party like the petitioner has preferred the said Rule 6(2) KLU application before 30.12.2017 is also legally entitled to maintain an application under S.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for getting the subject property so as to subject the property to fresh assessment/re-assessment for securing additional entries in the BTR which shows the property as 'garden land' or 'purayidom' instead of the earlier BTR entries as 'Nilam' or 'paddy land' and in the light of the dictum in that regard was so categorically held and declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 9 judgment in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516 (DB).” 14. In the light of above judgment, if any application is pending under the Kerala Land Utilization Order before 30.12.2017 the date on which 27 A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act came into force, that has to be considered in accordance with Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. 15. Admittedly, in this case the land in question was a converted land and not included as a notified land in the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. Therefore, there is no impediment in considering the application submitted by the petitioner produced as Ext.P13 in WP(C) No.8050/2016 pending before the District Collector under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. 16. In regard to the objection of the Zonal Officer that the petitioner suppressed material facts in regard to the actual extent of the land, that shall be considered based on the documents to be placed by the petitioner before the Zonal Officer in regard to the alienation of the remaining land by them. In the light of above, these writ petitions are disposed of with [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 10 the following directions:- i) The District Collector is directed to take up Ext.P13 produced in WP(C) No.8050/2016 under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order after issuing notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. ii) If the application filed by the petitioner is allowed by the District Collector under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, the Zonal Officer, Kannur Corporation is directed to take up the application for renewal of building permit after adverting to the actual extent of the land available to the petitioner and also hearing the petitioner and 4[th] respondent in WP(C) No.8050/2016 without further delay. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** SAS/22/09/2020 [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 11 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8050/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.411/2004 OF KANNUR SRO DATED 29.01.2014.** **EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3231/2014, KANNUR SRO** **EXHIBIT P1(B) A TRUE EYE SKETCH DISCLOSING THE LIE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.32/2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PUZHATHI DATED 09.01.2013. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.01.2013. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOGRAPHS REVEALING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P3 (A) PHOTOGRAPHS REVEALING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P3(B) PHOTOGRAPHS REVEALING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.28071/2013 DATED 27.11.2013. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 16.12.2014. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 27.09.2014. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATED 08.12.2014. EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 30.12.2015. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 22.07.2015. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS OF** [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 12 **THE PANCHAYATH DATED 02.06.2015.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.07.2015.** **EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (VILLAGE OFFICER) DATED 18.01.2016.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2016** - **EXHIBIT P12 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.2.2016** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULARIZATION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND COUNTER FOIL CHALAN EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF APPLICATION FEE DATED 11.2.2016** - **EXHIBIT P14 DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF THE YEAR 2003 DATED 03/12/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P14 (A) DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF THE YEAR 2006 DATED 11/06/2006.** - **EXHIBIT P14 (B) DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF THE YEAR 2010 DATED 29/11/2010.** - **EXHIBIT P14 (C) DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF THE YEAR 2011 DATED 14/11/2011.** - **EXHIBIT P14(D) DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF THE YEAR 2013 DATED 01/12/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P14(E) DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF THE YEAR 2014 DATED 18/03/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P14(F) DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF THE YEAR 2015 DATED 29/11/2015.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A)** **TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05/10/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN OF THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE** [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 13 **OF THE OMBUDSMAN OF THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT R4(C) RUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 30/04/2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUZHATHI PANCHAYATH.** **EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUZHATHI PANCHAYATH.** **EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 06/10/2016 OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER.** **EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK DETAILS ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN.** **EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 19/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 01.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR** - **ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03/09/2016 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/01/2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE MUNICIPALITY** - **ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 16/11/2015.** - **ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER (VIGILANCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06/10/2015.** - **ANNEXURE 5 COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 30/04/2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH** - **ANNEXURE 6 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DATA BANK OF PADDY LANDS AND WET LANDS** [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 14 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2087/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 411/2004 OF KANNUR SRO DATED 29.1.2014** - **EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3231/2014 KANNUR SRO DATED 16.9.2014** - **EXHIBIT P1(B) TRUE COPY OF EYE SKETCH DISCLOSING THE LIE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATED NIL** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.32/2013 ISSUED BY THE 6LLAGE OFFICE, PUZHATHI DATED 9.1.2013** - **EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2013** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS REVEALING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY DATED NIL** - **EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS REVEALING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY DATED NIL** - **EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS REVEALING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY DATED NIL.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.28071/2013 DATED 27.11.2013** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 16.12.2014** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO PUZHATHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 27.9.2014** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATED 8.12.2014** - **EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 30.12.2015** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.7.2015** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 2.6.2015** [ WP(C).8050/2016, WP(C).2087/2017 ] 15 |**EXHIBITP10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED**| |---|---| ||**BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 23.7.2015**| |**EXHIBITP11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC**| ||**INFORMATION OFFICER (VILLAGE OFFICER) DATED**| ||**18.1.2016**| |**EXHIBITP12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2016**| |**EXHIBITP13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE/PROCEEDINGS ISSUED**| ||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.1.2017**| |**EXHIBITP14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE**| ||**DATA BANK DATED NIL**| |**EXHIBITP15**|**DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM FROM THE GOOGLE**| ||**MP OF THE YEAR 2003 DATED 3.12.2013**| |**EXHIBITP15(A)**|**DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM FROM THE GOOGLE**| ||**MP OF THE YEAR 2006 DATED 11.6.2006**| |**EXHIBITP15(B)**|**DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM FROM THE GOOGLE**| ||**MP OF THE YEAR 2010 DATED 29.11.2010**| |**EXHIBITP15(C)**|**DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF**| ||**THE YEAR 2011 DATED 14.11.2011**| |**EXHIBITP15(D)**|**DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM FROM THE GOOGLE**| ||**MAP OF THE YEAR 2013 DATED 1.12.2013**| |**EXHIBITP15(E)**|**DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF**| ||**THE YEAR 2014 DATED 18.3.2014**| |**EXHIBITP15(F)**|**DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT FROM THE GOOGLE MAP OF**| ||**THE YEAR 2015 DATED 29.11.2015**| |**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:**|**NIL**| ||//TRUE COPY//| ||P.A. TO JUDGE|