Sukhendu S. and Sooraj S. v. The Chief Engineer, Harbour Engineering Department, Kamaleswaram; The Secretary, Varkala Municipality; The District Collector; Aravindakshan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 8031 of 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 SUKHENDU.S., AGED 55 YEARS S/O.V.SWAMINATHAN, S.N.V.BUNGLOW, PUTHENCHANTHA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695141.** - **2 SOORAJ S., AGED 49 YEARS S/O.V.SWAMINATHAN, S.N.V.BUNGLOW, PUTHENCHANTHA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695141.** **BY SRI.SUKHENDU.S. (PARTY)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695141.** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 2ND FLOOR CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695043.** - **4 ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 81 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN VAIDYAN, KEERTHI NIVAS, PUTHENCHANTHA, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM-695141.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR BY ADV.SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL,GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-2-:** ## **J U D G M E N T** Smt.Leela R., the learned counsel for the petitioners relinquished vakalath. The petitioners, who appeared in person, seek permission to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to their right to prosecute W.P.(C)No.25948/2015 filed by the 1st petitioner herein. 2. Going by the averments in this writ petition, the 1st petitioner is in possession of 36¾ cents of land in Sy.No.3484-D in sub-division 8/1 of Varkala Village. The 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner, who is his brother, are joint owners of 43 cents of land with building, well, etc., in Sy.No.3484-A in sub-division 13/1 of Varkala Village. In addition to this, the 2nd petitioner was allotted 16 cents of land in Sy.No.3466 in sub-division No.2 of Varkala Village, ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-3-:** vide Ext.P1 partition deed No.2089/1996. The petitioners' mother acquired the properties partitioned as per Ext.P1 partition deed, vide Ext.P2 partition deed No.4687/1123. The petitioners would contend that the properties partitioned as per Ext.P2 partition deed, were private properties. For the purpose of ingress and egress of the family members, a 15 links 3 meters wide pathway from ¾ cents of property allotted to one Sarojini was provided in Sy.No.3477, which is on the western side of the property in Sy.No.3484. 3. The 1st petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.25948 of 2015, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of Varkala Municipality to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 representation dated 10.08.2015. The said representation is one requesting the Secretary of the Municipality not to aid one V.Aravindan, the 2nd respondent therein, so as to ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-4-:** defeat the decree obtained by the 1st petitioner in O.S.No.165 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Varkala, granting prohibitory injunction against the defendants in that suit, from encroaching into the plaint schedule property and demolishing the western boundary wall. The 1st petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of the Municipality to restrain himself from the arbitrary act of widening the pathway, without hearing the petitioner. The interim relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015 reads thus; “For the reasons stated in the above writ petition it is most humbly prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to abstain from widening the road on the western side of the petitioner's property pending the above writ petition.” (Underline supplied) 4. On 21.08.2015, when W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015 came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-5-:** for Varkala Municipality took notice. This Court issued notice to respondents 2 and 3 therein by speed post. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Municipality cannot demolish the building, as alleged, on account of the pendency of the civil suit between the petitioner on one side and respondents 2 and 3 on the other side. 5. On 05.04.2016, when W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015 came up for consideration, this Court has granted an order of status quo as regards the pathway in question. 6. On 20.02.2019, I.A.No.2 of 2019 was filed by Smt.Shola S.Sivan and 8 others, seeking an order to implead them as additional respondents 4 to 12 in W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015. In the affidavit accompanying to that interlocutory application, it is averred that there is a cartable road that commences at Varkala Puthenchantha Telephone Exchange, which ends at Ayurveda Government ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-6-:** Hospital. The said road maintained by Varkala Municipality is having a width of 8 feet, which is vested in the Municipality. The applicants have produced Ext.R12(a) certificate dated 13.12.2012 issued by Varkala Municipality, Ext.R12(b) sketch and also Ext.R12(c) sale deed dated 21.08.2014 executed by Shri.Suraj, S/o.Swaminathan, who is the brother of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25948 of 2015 (who is the 1st petitioner in this writ petition), in favour of additional 4th respondent sought to be impleaded, in respect of 6 Ares and 68 sq.meters of land. In the said document, the eastern boundary of the property is shown as public road maintained by the Municipality. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2019, they have also filed I.A.No.3 of 2019, seeking an order to vacate the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25948 of 2015. 7. On 22.03.2019, the Secretary of the Municipality, who is the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-7-:** No.25948 of 2015, filed a counter affidavit, which was followed by another counter affidavit filed on 02.04.2019, producing therewith Ext.R1(g) letter dated 15.11.2016 of the Assistant Engineer, Harbour Engineering Department, wherein it has been stated that the road in question is included in the scheme of Harbour Department for maintenance. The document marked as Ext.R1(h) is an order dated 14.12.2016 on Ext.P6 representation dated 10.08.2015, wherein it has been stated that the pathway in question which is being used by about 60 families, is included in the Asset Register maintained by the Municipality. 8. This Court by order dated 14.03.2019, vacated the order of status quo granted in W.P.(C) No.25948 of 2015, noticing that the injunction granted in Ext.P1 was only in respect of demolition of western boundary of the petitioner's property. This Court has also ordered that parties to Ext.P1 shall comply with the injunction granted. The said ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-8-:** ## order reads thus; “1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the I.A., the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Municipality. 2.The interim order of _status quo_ had been issued by this Court on the pleading that Exhibit P1 judgment of the Munsiff's Court which has been confirmed in appeal and against which the RSA is pending is being violated. It was contended that the contesting respondents have prevailed upon the Municipality and the Municipality is taking steps to encroach into the petitioner's property by widening the pathway adjacent to the western boundary wall of the petitioner. 3.No counter affidavit had been placed on record by the Municipality. However, an impleading petition has been filed by the petitioners in this I.A. stating that Exhibit P1 was a suit for simple injunction as against - - the brother in law of the petitioner and that the road which is passing adjacent to the writ petitioner's property is a public road which vested in the Municipality. It is stated that the interim order has resulted in the ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-9-:** maintenance work of the public road being completely held up and the fund allotted by the Government for the maintenance of the road by the Harbour Engineering Department is due to lapse. 4.Though detailed arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the writ petition, I am of the opinion that the order of _status quo_ granted in respect of the entire pathway is not liable to be continued, in view of the fact that Exhibit P1 order of injunction was only in respect of the demolition of the western boundary wall of the writ petitioner's property. The interim order is therefore vacated. The parties to Exhibit P1 shall comply with the injunction issued. Post for further orders on 3.4.2019.” (Underline supplied) 9. On 15.03.2019, the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.25948 of 2015, along with his brother, moved this writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019, as 'today motion', seeking the following reliefs; “a) Declare that the 150 meters (23 links each on the east and west and 6 links north and south) pathway allotted as per Ext.P2 document ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-10-:** is a private pathway over which the 1st & 2 nd respondent have no right to metal/Tar. b) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to produce the entire documents by which the 1st respondent has sanctioned the metalling of the proposed Puthenchanda Telephone Exchange Road which includes the private way of the petitioners. c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to produce all documents relating to the ownership of Puthenchanda Telephone Exchange Road which includes the petitioners private property. d) Grant such other reliefs to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” (Underline supplied) 10. The interim relief sought for in W.P. (C)No.8031 of 2019 reads thus; “For the reasons stated in the above Writ Petition (C), it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to maintain the status quo of the Puthenchanda Telephone Exchange Road which includes the petitioners private property ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-11-:** as on date, pending the final disposal of this writ petition, in the interest of justice.” (Underline supplied) 11. The pendency of W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015 and also the order passed on 14.03.2019, whereby the order of status quo granted in that writ petition stands vacated, are not disclosed in the synopsis of W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019. As per the mandate of sub-rule (5) of Rule 35 of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971, the synopsis should contain the dates and events chronologically arranged. 12. In paragraph 11 of this writ petition, the petitioners have stated as follows; “11. The petitioner submits that while so as there was constant attempt from the side of 2nd respondent at the instance of 4th respondent, to widen the road and metal the private road, petitioner preferred WPC No.25948/15 seeking the following reliefs; Issue a writ of mandamus, (or) any other order, direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exhibit P6 representation. Issue a ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-12-:** writ of mandamus, (or) any other order, direction, directing the 1st respondent to restrain themselves from the arbitrary act of widening the pathway without hearing the petitioner. During the pendency of the above writ petition this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue status quo order. The order however has been vacated vide order in I.A.3/19 in W.P. (C)25948/15 on 14-3-19. The copy of the order has not been received. The copy will be produced as and when received.” 13. In paragraph 26 of this writ petition, the petitioners have stated that on 14.3.2019, the order of status quo granted in W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015 with regard to the road, was vacated; however, no question or arguments have considered whether it is a public road or a private road. However, a reading of paragraph 4 of the order dated 14.3.2019 in W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015 would show that such an order has been passed after considering detailed arguments by the learned counsel who represented the petitioner (the 1st petitioner herein). 14. The specific contention raised by ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-13-:** additional respondents 4 to 12 in W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015, who got themselves impleaded as per the order in I.A.No.2 of 2019, was that the road in question is maintained by the Varkala Municipality as evidenced by Ext.R12(a) certificate dated 13.12.2012 produced along with that interlocutory application and that, in Ext.R12(c) sale deed dated 21.8.2014 executed by Sri.Suraj (who is the brother of the petitioners herein) in favour of the additional 4th respondent, in respect of 6 Ares and 68 sq.meters of land, the eastern boundary of the property is shown as public road maintained by the Municipality. For reasons best known to the petitioners, they have chosen to file this writ petition before this Court on 15.3.2019, without impleading the additional 4th respondent and others in the party array, at whose instance the order of status quo granted in W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015 was vacated on 14.03.2019. ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-14-:** 15. In **Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. [(1984) 4** **SCC 251]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them before it as respondents in a representative capacity, if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and, if the petitioners refuse to so join them the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. 16. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that, the interim relief sought for in this writ petition is an order to maintain status quo of Puthenchantha Telephone Exchange road, including the petitioners' properties (which is stated to be a private property), pending disposal of this writ petition. The conduct of the petitioners in filing ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-15-:** this writ petition on 15.03.2019 and moving the same as 'today motion', suppressing material facts and making false statements, and without the additional 4th respondent and others in W.P. (C)No.25948 of 2015 in the party array cannot be viewed lightly. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that one among the petitioners is a Law Graduate. 17. As already noticed, the petitioners who appeared in person, sought permission to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to their right to prosecute W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015 filed by the 1st petitioner herein. The question that has to be decided is as to whether the petitioners can be permitted to withdraw this writ petition, once it is found that they have approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by suppressing material facts and making false ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-16-:** statements. 18. In **Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and** **others [(1995) 3 SCC 757]** , the Apex Court held that filing of false affidavit, or making false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions, because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. 19. In **Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police,** **Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another [(2011)** **5 SCC 496],** the Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In **Sciemed Overseas Inc.** ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-17-:** ## **v. BOC India Limited and others (2016) 3 SCC 70]** , the Apex Court held that the observations in **Muthu Karuppan's** case (cited supra) was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. 20. In **Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of** **India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]** the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **==> picture [41 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. 21. In **Prestige Lights' case** (supra) the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said judgment read ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-19-:** thus: **“33** . It is thus clear that though the appellantCompany had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. **34** . The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in - **R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136** **(CA)]** , in the following words: "It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts - ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-20-:** facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it - _the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts_ , and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." (Emphasis supplied) 22. It is well settled that, a litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands and clean objects. The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person would be allowed to abuse the judicial process, particularly, in public law remedy. In writ proceedings, the court places implicit faith on the parties and their pleadings, as it does not indulge in any fact finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted. Since Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses equity ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-21-:** jurisprudence, a litigant who has approached the Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any reliefs. 23. In **K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [(2008) 12 SCC 481]** , the Apex Court held that the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-22-:** The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts". In the said decision, the Apex Court held further that, if the primary object as highlighted in **R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486]** is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands'. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-23-:** for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the court. 24. In **Usha Nanthini v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and another [2018 (2) KHC 89]** this Court held that, once it is found that the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by suppressing material facts and making false statements,such an attempt made by the petitioner to abuse the process of this Court has to be dealt with appropriately. In such cases this Court has ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of the writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, in order to prevent abuse of process of this Court and to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. 25. The law laid down by this Court in **Usha** **Nanthini's case** _(supra)_ has been affirmed by a ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-24-:** Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.455 of 2018. 26. Having considered the submissions made by the petitioners, who appeared in person, and also the respective counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that permission to withdraw this writ petition can be allowed only on imposing cost on the petitioners, in view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to prosecute W.P. (C)No.25948 of 2015, based on the submission made by the petitioners, who appeared in person, on payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) payable by the petitioners, to the Kerala Legal Services Authority, an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to provide free legal service to the weaker sections of the society. Such payment shall ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-25-:** be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case the petitioners fail to pay the said amount within the time limit specified as above, it would be open to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority to recover the said amount by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioners and their assets, in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.107/2011/RD dated 26.02.2011, by which the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 were made applicable to the recovery of amounts due from any person or class of persons to the said Authority. Registry shall communicate a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, Kochi, for information. Registry shall incorporate a copy of this judgment in the Judge's papers of W.P.(C)No.25948 of 2015. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ami/ **JUDGE** ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** ## **:-26-:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 2089/1996** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 4687/1123 OF MALAYALAM CALENDAR** **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO. 165/96 DATED 27/10/2000 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VARKALA.** **EXHIBIT P3(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS 165/96 DATED 1/7/1996 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VARKALA.** **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN AS NO. 100/2000 DATED 5/1/2008** **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 2676/2005 DATED 1/2/2005.** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 369/2010 IN OS NO. 55/2010 DATED 3RD MARCH 2010.** **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5/3/2014 GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY.** **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B3395/11 DATED 29/9/2012 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT (RESURVEY), NEDUMANGAD.** **EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, NEDUMANGAD DATED 20/11/2013.** **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. 5523/R.A. 1/2015 /LSGD DATED 3/8/2015.** ## **W.P.(C)No.8031 of 2019** **:-27-:** **EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. K 4(3)6028/18, 14582/17 DATED 21/6/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHASILDAR, VARKALA.** **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPLICATION NO. 1694/A2/17/TVM/KSCSC AND ST DATED 23/11/2017** - **EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK SETTLEMENT REGISTER FILE NO. 1312488/19.** - **' -** - **RESPONDENTS EXTS.:** - **EXHIBIT R2(a)** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND OTHERS IN O.S.NO.55 OF 2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VARKALA.** - **EXHIBIT R2(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE MUNICIPALITY IN O.S.NO.55 OF 2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VARKALA.** - **EXHIBIT R2(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2010 IN I.A.NO.369 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.55 OF 2010 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VARKALA.** - **EXHIBIT R2(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2012 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.174 OF 2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION.** **EXHIBIT R2(e)** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF AFFIDAVIT DATED 03/01/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN O.S.NO.55 OF 2010** - **EXHIBIT R2(f) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE CASE STATUS TAKEN FROM E.COURT INDIA SERVICE WEBSITE SHOWING THE STATUS OF O.S.NO.55 OF 2010 (REGISTRATION NO.300055/2010).**