T. A. Radhakrishnan (Survey Department) v. State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **OP(KAT) NO. 350 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA (EKM) 21/2013 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** T.A.RADHAKRISHNAN (SURVEY DEPARTMENT) AGED 75 YEARS,S/O T.K.APPUKUTTAN I ST GRADE DRAFTSMAN,(RETD) THALEKKARA HOUSE, CHATHANUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT'KERALA PHN NO.9447943568, PIN - 679635 BY ADV T.A.RAJAGOPALAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA, PIN - 695001 2 THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695014 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. B UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP KAT 370 OF 2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :2: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **OP(KAT) NO. 370 OF 2022** (Against the Order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal , Ernakulam dated 27-06-2022 in O.A. (EKM) 214/2022 & M.A. (EKM) No. 306/2022) ## **PETITIONER/S:** T.A.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 75 YEARS EMP ID NO: 1234 (SURVEY DEPARTMENT) S/O T.K.APPUKUTTAN, 1ST GRADE DRAFTSMAN,(RETD) THALEKKARA HOUSE, CHATHANUR P.O, , PALAKKAD DISTRICT,KERALA,MOB NO: 9447943568, PIN - 679635 BY ADV T.A.RAJAGOPALAN 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001 2 THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695014 3 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE(E)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA, PIN - 695001 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP (KAT) 350 OF 2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** :3: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ ............................................................** ## **O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022** .................................................................. Dated this the 23[rd] November, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Mohammed Nias.C.P.J.,** The applicant who filed O.A. (EKM) 21 of 2013 challenges the order dated 12-03-2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P. KAT No. 350 of 2022. OP (KAT) No. 370 of 2022 is filed by the very same applicant against the dismissal of O.A.(EKM) 214 of 2022 and M.A. (EKM) No. 306 of 2022 dated 27-6-2022. 2. The applicant entered service in the Department of Survey and Land Records as a Second Grade Draftsman on 01-09-1975 and states that he had passed the requisite test for promotion as First Grade Draftsman in October, 1982 and further tests like account test, revenue test, District Offices Manual Test and Head Draftsman test were also successfully completed between the years 1984 and 1986. Thus he claims to have been qualified for promotion to the post of First Grade Draftsman in 1982 but the said promotion was delayed and granted only in the year 1986. The applicant submits that an amendment brought to the General Rules by G.O. (P) No. 309/1984 :4: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 dated 31-08-1984 whereby, according to him, government servants who are aged 50 years while in service were granted exemption from passing tests necessary for further promotion and the said amendment is stated to have been incorporated in the Special Rules for the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service only in the year 1993. He, therefore, claims to be considered for promotion as Draftsmans Grade -I, and also for subsequent promotions as Head Drafts man, Technical Assistant, Assistant Director of Survey and Deputy Director of Survey. The applicant had moved this Court earlier and pursuant to the direction given by this Court, Annexure-A7 order dated 5-6-2002 was passed by the respondents rejecting his claims. He alleges the same to be a non-speaking order and, therefore, sought for a declaration that Annexures A1, A2 and A7 are bad and claims his rightful promotion before his juniors, who according to him are unqualified, were promoted. The Original Application was filed in the year 2013. 3. The first respondent filed a reply stating that the applicant had entered service as Second Grade Draftsman on 1-09-1975 and was included in the seniority list of Second Grade Draftsman as on 1- 11-1978 as Sl. No. 1005 and the said seniority list was published as early as on 15-08-1981 and it was never challenged. Subsequently, the applicant was again included in the seniority list as First Grade Draftsman promoted in between 2-6-1990 and 30-09-1998 and was **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 ranked as Sl. No. 149 in the above list. No candidates junior to the applicant was included as senior to him in the seniority lists. It is also stated that R. 13B was incorporated in the General Rules as per G.O.(P) No. 55/PD dated 2-3-1971 and was never challenged by the applicant. Annexure-A1 produced by the applicant, was only an amendment to the above Rules wherein the necessity for completing 25 years of service was taken away. This amendment was brought into effect from 26-08-1981 by Annexure A2 Special Rules. It is also stated that none of the Juniors of the applicants were promoted overlooking the applicants seniority. Seniors have been promoted earlier to him by virtue of them having passed the tests before and also granting them exemption under Rule 13 B of the KS & SSR. On these grounds they prayed for dismissal of the Original Application. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions found that the Special Rules for the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules was the one issued in the year 1966, the fact that Rule 13B was incorporated into the Subordinate Service Rules only in the year 1993 would not take away the enforceability of Rule 13 B as far as the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules are concerned. The seniority list was never under challenge and it cannot be allowed to be challenged after such a long lapse of time. In the absence of appropriate pleading and impleading the beneficiary of the actions complained as illegal by the applicant, no :6: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 relief could be granted and the Original Application was dismissed. 5. The applicant, thereafter, filed O.A. No. 214 of 2022 along with an application to condone the delay of 646 days stating that the applicant was eligible to be promoted to the post of First Grade Draftsman in the year 1980 and had that promotion being granted, the applicant would have been eligible for further promotion up to the post of Deputy Director. It was again contended that Special Rules were amended in the year 1993 providing exemption to employees attained the age of 50 years from passing the requisite test which according to the applicant was not permissible and those unqualified employees were not become eligible, by virtue of exemption and if they were not considered for promotion, the applicant would have been granted promotion much earlier. The Tribunal, found that the question raised by the applicant was considered in O.A. (Ekm) 21 of 2013, the same was dismissed by order dated 12-8-2016. In the absence of any challenge to the said order, the 2[nd] original application, after six years of the dismissal of the the Original Application raising a contention that an earlier decision of the High Court rendered in the year 2002 was not considered while issuing the impugned order, was held by the Tribunal to be an abuse of the process of law. The application to condone the delay was dismissed and consequently, the Original Application was also dismissed. It is against the orders in O.A. 21 of 2013 dated 12-08-2016 as well as the orders dated 27-6-2022 in O.A. (EKM) No. 214/2022 & :7: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 M.A. (EKM) No. 306 of 2022, these Original Petitions were filed. 6. We have heard Sri. T.A. Rajagopal , the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the pleadings and record, we have no hesitation to hold that the claims now preferred by the petitioner were rightly rejected by the Tribunal in the orders impugned in the Original Applications. In both the Original Petitions, the main contention of the petitioner was that this Court had passed orders in O.P. No. 11022 of 2000 on 5[th] April, 2002 wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to examine the claim of the applicant as to whether there were any posts to which he could have been accommodated after 1982 and whether any of his juniors or those who had no test qualification had been promoted to such grade. The Director of Survey and Land Records had rejected the claim of the applicant by Annexure-A7. The applicant filed C.C.C. No. 436 of 2003 alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court. By Judgment dated 25[th] June 2003, this court found that the proceedings dated 5-6-2022, the Director had already rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the contempt proceedings were dropped making it clear that the petitioner will be free to challenge the same appropriately. It is seen that the Original Application was filed 10 years thereafter. It was filed without impleading the persons who :8: ## O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 according to the petitioner were wrongly promoted superseding the claims of the petitioner. We have no doubt that the claim is barred by the principle of delay and laches and the Tribunal is absolutely right in declining to entertain the claim of the applicant, as it will have the effect of unsettling the promotions made years before. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner cites the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Rushibai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation [2022 SCC Online SC 641]** to contend that the petitioner was wrongly denied the eligible promotions and therefore, it must be treated as continuing cause which law recognizes as a continuing cause of action and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have rejected his claims. He also cites the judgments in **M.R.Gupta v. Union of India and Others [(1995) 5 SCC 628]: Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [(2016) 13 SCC 797]** to say that there was no delay and laches on his part and that his claim ought to have been considered on merits in his favour. 9. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the seniority list prepared while the petitioner was in service was never challenged by him at the appropriate time. The promotions which the petitioner claimed were illegal were also not challenged by impleading those who were the beneficiary of such alleged illegal acts. The argument of the petitioner :9: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 that it is a continuing cause of action which may give rise to a recurring cause of action also cannot apply, after the lapse of such a long time. The cases in which the Supreme Court considered the continuing cause of action were mostly the claim of salary or pension and so long as an employee was in service, a fresh cause of action would arise every month on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the rules. Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. If writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may also have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor that weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. **(See Union of India and Others** **v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) (8) SCC 648).** It cannot be said that in the instant case there is a continuing wrong as the wrongful act which allegedly caused the injury was complete years ago. In this connection, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by a wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury. [ **Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare and Others v. Shree** ## **Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan and Others AIR1959 SC 798].** The decision relied on by the petitioner are clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the instant case. :10: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 10. Even in cases where the court entertains the claims with substantial delay, the relief relating to arrears is confined only to the arrears for a period of three years before the date of writ petition or from the date of demand whichever is less. Even in cases where there are continuing or successive wrongs only if there is no adverse repercussions on the settled third-party rights will the courts entertain the claim, despite there being delay and laches. Further it is relevant to note that the present claim of the petitioner was clearly barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The order sought to be challenged in the Tribunal was one which was passed pursuant to the directions of this Court in the year 2003. The Tribunal was not obliged to consider the claim of the petitioner on merits. Notwithstanding the same, the Tribunal had considered the claim on merits, while dismissing the original application filed in the year 2013. We do not think that the Tribunal has committed any error in passing the orders impugned. The Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed. ## **Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,** ## **JUDGE** ## **Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE** ani/ :11: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 370/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES |Annexure A1|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PASSING| |---|---| ||FIRST GRADE DRAFTSMAN TEST, IN OCTOBER,| ||1982| |Annexure A2|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PASSING| ||HEAD DRAFTSMAN TEST, IN SEPTEMBER, 1986| |Annexure A3|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PASSING| ||ACCOUNT TEST FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, IN| ||JULY, 1984| |Annexure A4|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PASSING| ||REVENUE TEST, IN JULY, 1984| |Annexure A5|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PASSING| ||DISTRICT OFFICES MANUAL TEST, IN JANUARY,| ||1985| |Annexure A6|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SURVEY| ||MANUAL, SPECIAL RULES 16-19| |Annexure A7|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF KSSSR| ||(RULE 2)| |Annexure A8|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10-| ||07-1999| |Annexure A9|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04-11-1999| |Annexure A10|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05-04-| ||2002, IN O P NO.11022/2000| |Annexure A11|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A3.| ||393/2000/KDIS, DATED 05-06-2002| |Annexure A12|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CCC NO. 436| ||OF 2003 DATED 25-06-2003| |Annexure A13|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. 309/84 GAD DATED| ||31-08-1984| |Annexure A14|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME| ||COURT IN 2001 (5) SCC 482| |Annexure A15|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME| ||COURT IN 2001 (4) SCC 433| :12: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 |Annexure A16|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO: 79225/| |---|---| ||E1/04/REVENUE DATED 04-08-2006| |Annexure A17|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||24-10-2007| |Annexure A18|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO SURVEY| ||E5:22474/2007 DATED 23-11-2007| |Annexure A19|THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE| ||HONORABLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE W.P.(C| ||) NO: 29126/2007 DATED 22-11-2007| |Annexure A20|THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 07-| ||07-2008| |Annexure A21|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO SY H6| ||15997/2008 DATED 07-08-2008| |Annexure A22|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||15-08-2008| |Annexure A23|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18-09-| ||2008| |Annexure A24|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION| ||DATED 22-10-2008| |Annexure A25|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION IN| ||APRIL, 2009| |Annexure A26|THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE| ||HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 12-| ||01-2010 IN W.P (C) NO. 30679/2009| |Annexure A27|THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED| ||KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A NO.| ||(EKM)-21/ 013 DATED 12-08-2016| |Annexure A28|THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE| ||SURVEY DIRECTOR FILED IN CONTEMPT CASE| ||NO. C C C 436 /2003 ON 21-05-2003| |Annexure A29|THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE| ||HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN 1985| ||(1) ILR (KERALA) 657 DATED 21-12-1984| |Annexure A30|THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 2003(1)| ||ILR KERALA 416| |Annexure A31|THE TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM NO| ||10267/RULES -1/87/P &ARD DATED 09-11-1987| |Annexure A32|THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM| :13: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 ||NO: 21969/RULES-1/1988 P & ARD DATED 05-| |---|---| ||11-1988| |Annexure A33|THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM| ||NO:5303/RULES-1/88 P & ARD DATED 07-02-| ||1990| |Annexure A34|THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID CIRCULAR NO:| ||NO:22/PRC-A1/90/FIN DATED 03-04-1990| |Annexure A35|THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE| ||FINANCE OFFICER DIRECTOR SURVEY RECORDS| ||IN WP(C) NO 30679 OF 2009| |Annexure A36|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF| ||THE UNDER SECRETARY| |Annexure A37|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING THE| ||LIST OF EMP ID OF EMPLOYEE| |Annexure A38|THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN (2015) 9| ||SCC 680| |Annexure A39|THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN (1993) 2| ||KLT 287| |Annexure A40|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO:| ||670265/2017 /REV (E) E FILE REV E| ||1/32/2017| |Annexure A41|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-01-| ||2018| |Annexure A42|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER| ||DSLR/21126/2017-A3 DATED 06-03-2018| |Annexure A43|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-02-| ||2019| |Annexure A44|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-10-| ||2019| |Annexure A45|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||20-04-2020| |Annexure A46|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-10-| ||2020| |Annexure A47|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-04-| ||2021| |Annexure A48|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-11-| ||2021| |Annexure A49|THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE| :14: ## O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN (2016) 16SCC 524 Annexure A50 MEDICAL CERTIFICATE Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O A (EKM)NO214/2022 FILED BEFORE THE HONORABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION DELAY MA 306/2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST OBJECTIONS IN MA 306/2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE LEARNED KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O A 214/2022 AND MA 306/2022 :15: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 350/2022** |PETITIONER ANNEXURES|PETITIONER ANNEXURES| |---|---| |Annexure A1|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(P)| ||NO.309/84 GAD DATED 31 -08-1984| |Annexure A2|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GO (P)| ||NO.491/93RD DATED 8-11-1993| |Annexure A3|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25- 06-| ||2003 IN CCC NO.436/2003-S PASSED BY THE| ||HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA| |Annexure A4|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22- 11-| ||2007 IN W P (C).NO 29126/2007 PASSED BY| ||THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA| |Annexure A5|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED| ||BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT 1 AND| ||2| |Annexure A6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12- 01-| ||2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.30679/2009(D)| |Annexure A7|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.| ||A3.393/2000/K DIS DATED 05/06/2002 OF| ||DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (2ND| ||RESPONDENTS| |Exhibit P1|THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O A| ||(EKM) N0.21/2013 FILED BEFORE THE| ||HONORABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON| ||BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE| ||HONORABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL| ||IN OA(EKM) NO21/2013D| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 1985 ( 1 )| ||ILR KERALA 657| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 2003 (1 )ILR| ||KERALA 416| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY MANUAL SPECIAL| ||RULES 16-19| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL RULE 2 OF KSSSR| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP NO 11022/2000| ||DATED 05-04-2002| :16: O.P. (KAT) Nos. 350 and 370 of 2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF LIST OF EMPD SURVEY DEPARTMENT - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE IUDGRNENT IN 2015 (9) SCC 680 - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN (2016) 16 SCC 524 - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OFTHEJUDGMENT IN 1993 (2) KLT 287 - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM NO. 10267/RULES.1/87/P&ARD DATED 09/11 /1987 - Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 22/PRCA1/90/FIN DATED 03/04/1990 - Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN 0 A (EKM) 21/2013 DATED 12-08-2016 - Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF SPECIAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT NO. 670265/2017 /REV (E) FILE REV E 1/32/2017 DATED NIL - Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 09-01- 2018 TO SPECIAL SECRETARY - Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. - DSLR/21126/2017-A3 DATED 06-03-2018 FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT TO ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY - Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 2001 (5) SCC 482 - Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 2001 (4) SCC 433 (3 MEMBER BENCH) - Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE FINANCE OFFICER IN W.P.C. NO.30679/2009