T. P. Narayanan v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 17TH ASWINA, 1940 WP(C).No. 16245 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **T.P. NARAYANAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, T.P.HOUSE,KALARIVATHUKKAL, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY,**| ||**KANNUR-670001,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**KANNUR-670001.**| |**4**|**THE COMMANDANT,**| ||**STATION CELL, DSC CENTRE,**| ||**STATION HEAD QUARTERS,**| ||**KANNUR-670 001.**| **BY ADVS.** R1 & R3 BY SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER **R2 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.K.V.SHENU SRI.ARUN ANTONY R4 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R4 BY SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 2 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P17 order passed by the State Government dated 03.08.2013 on account of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11570 of 2011 dated 25.03.2013, whereby the 2[nd] respondent Municipality was directed to take necessary action against the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner violating the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 [for brevity, 'the Rules, 1999']. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner has purchased a plot near Payyambalam Beach in Kannur District, for the purpose of construction of a Hotel building. Thereafter, an application for building permit was submitted before the Secretary of the 2[nd] respondent seeking permit for construction of a ground plus 3 floor building. Accordingly, the Municipality has issued Ext.P1 permit dated 02.07.2008. In order to comply with the regulations contained under the Notifications issued under the Coastal Regulation Zone, the building had to be pulled back and thereupon, it necessitated to increase the number of floors and W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 3 consequently, sought for alteration of the building permit. Accordingly, Ext.P2 revised building permit was issued on 03.10.2009. As per Ext.P2, permission was granted for construction of ground plus 5 floor building. Petitioner has completed the construction of the structure and minor works alone were remaining to be done. It is also submitted that, petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.2 crores for construction of the building from the Kerala Financial Corporation, evident from Ext.P3. 3. While so, 4[th] respondent has issued a notice to the Secretary of the Municipality, with a copy to the petitioner, on 03.10.2010, stating that, it has given NOC to the Municipality only for construction of 3 floors and construction is being carried on in excess of the NOC given by the 4[th] respondent, evident from Ext.P4. Case of the petitioner is that, Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained. Rule 7 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules only speaks about intimation to be given to the Defence establishment where the construction is within a distance of 100 metres from any property maintained by them. It is further submitted that, the road passing through the side of the building of the petitioner is said to have been maintained by the Defence, and there are no other W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 4 properties maintained by the Defence in the nearby areas. Hence, as a matter of fact, the said provision is not at all applicable, since there are no properties maintained by the Defence within 100 metres. Even assuming that the road passing through the side of the property of the petitioner being used by the public is maintained by the Defence, the Municipality had intimated the 4[th] respondent regarding the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit, and the 4[th] respondent has issued NOC for granting permit as per order dated 11.04.2007, evident from Ext.P5 relating to the construction of ground plus 3 floors. 4. It is also pointed out that, when the petitioner applied for revised building permit, Municipality again intimated the 4[th] respondent regarding the same as per Ext.P6 communication dated 20.08.2007. As per the Rules, the requirement is only for intimating the officer concerned, and if no reply is received within 30 days, the Secretary can issue permit accordingly. According to the petitioner, the Secretary of the Municipality is not bound to wait beyond 30 days for the communication of the 4[th] respondent. Therefore, there is no irregularity in granting the revised permit to the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 5 5. That apart, it is submitted that, at a later point of time, the 4[th] respondent is not competent to raise any objection. It is further stated that, in the adjacent property, respondents 2 and 4 have given sanction for construction of a 15 storied building, evident from Ext.P7. The property mentioned in Sl.No.C in Ext.P7 is in respect of the 15 storied building which is situated adjacent to the property of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, since a permission is granted for the construction of a multistoried building in the adjoining property, the 4[th] respondent is not at liberty to raise any technical or security-wise objection in granting NOC for a 5 storied building. 6. In response to Ext.P4, the Secretary of the Municipality has issued a communication to the 4[th] respondent that, since no objection was raised by the 4[th] respondent within 30 days from the date of intimation regarding the application for revision of the permit by the petitioner, as per Ext.P8 communication dated 10.11.2010, there is no impediment in granting building permit and there is no irregularity in issuing the revised building permit. The 4[th] respondent has also issued a communication identical to Ext.P4 to the W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 6 District Collector, stating that there is violation in the matter of construction of the building by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P9. On receipt of Ext.P9, the District Collector has issued Ext.P10 communication dated 11.11.2010, to the Municipality seeking certain information regarding the construction carried out by the petitioner. 7. In response to Ext.P10, the Municipality has submitted Ext.P11 reply dated 03.12.2010, stating that, there is no violation in issuing permit and if there is any violation noted, appropriate action will be taken. However, Ext.P12 stop memo dated 18.11.2010 was issued by the Secretary of the Municipality to the petitioner. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P13 reply to the Municipality stating that the construction of the building is almost complete and what remains is only some interior works alone. Other submissions are also made in Ext.P13. 8. Matters being so, petitioner came to know about Ext.P14 order issued by the State Government dated 15.03.2011, directing to cancel the building permit issued to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.11570 of 2011 before this Court and as per an interim order dated 11.04.2011, W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 7 permitted the petitioner to make finishing and furnishing works in respect of the constructions already effected, evident from Ext.P15. When the petitioner continued the works, based on the interim order, the 4[th] respondent caused obstruction to the ingress and egress to the petitioner's from the road alleged to be maintained by the 4[th] respondent. As per the order in I.A.No.10343 of 2011 dated 05.07.2011, 4[th] respondent was directed to remove the obstruction within a week. However, the same was not complied with, consequent to which, Contempt of Case No.1315 of 2011 was filed and on the basis of the submission made by the 4[th] respondent, further proceedings were dropped. 9. Later, as per Ext.P16 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P14 Government Order and directed to take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in ' _**Heera Construction (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Trivandrum**_ ' [2008 (3) KLT 553] and the issuance of occupancy certificate for the 4[th] and 5[th] floors shall be considered after disposal of the matter by the Government, and the interim order with regard to the use of the road will continue to be in force till the disposal of the matter. W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 8 10. Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner, Municipality and the 4[th] respondent and after hearing the parties, the State Government have passed Ext.P17 impugned order. According to the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent has not taken into account the legal consequences in respect of the power enjoyed by the 4[th] respondent as per [The] Works of Defence Act, 1903 and the provisions of the Building Rules, and therefore, the directions contained under Ext.P17 are arbitrary and illegal, liable to be interfered with by this Court. In Ext.P17, apart from non-securing of NOC with respect to the additional floors, it was also found that construction is in violation of Rules 33, 35(1), 34(2) and 117 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. 11. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit, justifying its stand adopted in the communication issued to the statutory authorities in respect of the revised permit secured by the petitioner from the 2[nd] respondent Municipality for the construction of 4[th] and 5[th] floors of the building in question. It is also pointed out that, even though the 4[th] respondent authority only ensures the guidelines issued by the Defence Ministry, which does not include road access to the subject site, ensuring the availability of road 9 W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 access is the responsibility of the Municipality before issuing permit after obtaining NOC from the Local Military Authority in accordance with Rule 5 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. That apart, it is contended that, the 4[th] respondent has not received any application dated 20.08.2007, and in order to establish the same, Ext.R4(c) extract of the incoming Dak Register pertaining to 20[th] August, 2007 is produced. So far as the NOC given to the adjacent property for construction of the 15 storied building is concerned, it is stated that, the office of the 4[th] respondent has revoked the NOC and the owners have filed a case before this Court, which is pending consideration. 12. That apart, it is submitted that, the 4[th] respondent did not raise any objection since it has not received the application requesting for the construction of additional two floors. Further, it is contended that, since no application was received from the Municipality on account of the revised building permit sought for, petitioner/Municipality is not entitled to get any benefit of the deemed permission on account of expiry of period of 30 days. Other contentions are also put forth justifying Ext.P17 order passed by the State Government. W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 10 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality as also the learned CGC appearing for the 4[th] respondent. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 14. The sole question that is projected for consideration is the legality of Ext.P17 order passed by the 1[st] respondent dated 03.08.2013. It is an admitted fact that, for the purpose of construction of ground plus three floors, the Secretary of the Municipality has secured a NOC from the 4[th] respondent, and thereafter only, the building permit was issued. Now the controversy that has cropped up is that, while the petitioner submitted a revised building permit application, the Secretary of the 2[nd] respondent Municipality did not make any application for consideration of the 4[th] respondent and no NOC was issued by the 4[th] respondent. However, the Municipality has a case that, on receipt of the application for revised building permit, on 20.08.2007, the Municipality has addressed the 4[th] respondent, however, no objection was made by the 4[th] respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. However, the 4[th] respondent has a case that, no such application was W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 11 received, and therefore, the accrual of the deemed permit to the petitioner can never be sustained. The 4[th] respondent has also produced Ext.R4(c) inward Dak Register for 20[th] August, 2007. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thereon has a contention that, the 4[th] respondent has produced the inward register of only 20[th] August, 2007, whereas the communication of the Municipality is also dated 20.08.2007, and therefore, there is every likelihood of the Municipality forwarding the letter subsequent to the date contained in the letter and in order to avoid the exact fact situation put forth by the Municipality, the 4[th] respondent has produced the inward register of 20[th] August, 2007 alone. It is also clear from Ext.P17 that, apart from the issue with respect to the NOC, it is pointed out that, petitioner has violated certain Rules prescribed under the Rules, 1999, and therefore, petitioner was directed to rectify the mistakes contained under the Building Rules also. 16. It is true, as per Rule 5(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, in the case of application for development or re-development of any land within a distance of 100 metres from any property maintained by Defence establishment, the Secretary shall consult the W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 12 officer-in-charge of such establishment before the permission is granted. Such officer shall furnish his reply within thirty days from the date of receipt of the consultation letter if such establishment has any objection to the proposed development, and if any objection is raised by the officer within the said thirty days, it shall be considered by the Secretary before issuing permit. As per sub-rule (7) of Rule 5, if final remarks are not received within the 30 days time from the Defence Officer or Railway Authority, the Secretary may delay final decision, if any interim reply is received from the concerned Defence Authority. 17. Even though there is a dispute raised by the 4[th] respondent with respect to the receipt of the communication issued by the Secretary of the 2[nd] respondent dated 20.08.2007, and has produced the inward Register of 20[th] August, 2007, that by itself is not a conclusive proof to show that the Secretary has not furnished any letter dated 20.08.2007 on the subsequent dates. The date contained in the letter in question is not a conclusive proof to show that the 4[th] respondent has not received the communication on any subsequent dates. Therefore, in order to establish before this Court, the 4[th] respondent should have produced the Inward Register at W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 13 least for a reasonable period post 20[th] August, 2007. However, for reasons best known to the 4[th] respondent, no such exercise is undertaken. 18. That apart, the 4[th] respondent exercised the power for issuance of NOC under [The] Works of Defence Act, 1903, which is an Act provided for imposing restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of works of defence in order that such land may be kept free from buildings and other obstructions and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such imposition. Section 3 deals with imposition of restrictions, which read thus: _“_ _**3. Declaration and notice that restrictions will be imposed** -- (1) Whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary to impose restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of any work of defence or of any site intended to be used or to be acquired for any such work, in order that such land may be kept free from buildings and other obstructions, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders._ _(2) The said declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate and the place where a sketch plan of the land, which shall be prepared on a scale not smaller than six inches to the mile and shall distinguish the boundaries referred to in section 7, may be inspected, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the said declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality._ W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 14 _(3) The declaration shall be conclusive proof that it is necessary to keep the land free from buildings and other obstructions.”_ 19. Therefore, on a reading of Sec.3, it is evident that, it is necessary to impose restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of any work of defence, or of any site intended to be used, ought to be acquired for any such work in order that such land may be kept free from buildings and other obstructions. A declaration is to be made to that effect under the signature of the Secretary to such Government or some officer duly authorised to certify its orders. Therefore, the power conferred on the Central Government to issue the notification is restricted to the category mentioned thereunder. 20. Here, in this case, it is clear from the contentions put forth by the rival parties that the objections are raised by the 4[th] respondent not on account of any building constructed by the petitioner but on account of the road used by the petitioner which is said to be maintained by the 4[th] respondent. Therefore, in my considered opinion, that is not a subject matter taken care of under Sec.3 of Act, 1903. Section 7 of Act, 1903 deals with restrictions, which read thus: W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 15 _“_ _**7. Restrictions.** --From and after the publication of the notice mentioned in section 3, sub-section (2), such of the following restrictions as the Central Government may in its discretion declare therein shall attach with reference to such land, namely:_ _(a) Within an outer boundary which, except so far as is otherwise provided in section 39, subsection (4) may extend to a distance of two thousand yards from the crest of the ouetr parapet of the work,--_ _(i) no variation shall be made in the groundlevel, and no building, wall, bank or other construction above the ground shall be maintained, erected, added to or altered otherwise than with the written approval of the General Officer Commanding the District, and on such conditions, as he may prescribe;_ _(ii) no wood, earth, stone, brick, gravel, sand or other material shall be stacked, stored or otherwise accumulated:_ _Provided that, with the written approval of the General Officer Commanding the District and on such conditions as he may prescribe, road-ballast, manure and agricultural produce may be exempted from the prohibition:_ _Provided also that any person having control of the land as owner, lessee or occupier shall be bound forthwith to remove such road-ballast, manure or agricultural produce, without compensation, on the requisition of the Commanding Officer:_ _(iii) no surveying operation shall be conducted otherwise than by or under the personal supervision of a public servant duly authorised in this behalf, in the case of land under the control of military authority, by the Commanding Officer and, in other cases, by the Collector with the concurrence of the Commanding Officer, and_ _(iv) where any building, wall, bank or other construction above the ground has been permitted under clause (i) of this sub-section to be manned, erected, added to or altered, repairs shall not, without the written approval of the General Officer_ W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 16 _Commanding the District, be made with materials different in kind from those employed in the original building, wall, bank or other construction._ _(b) Within a second boundary which may extend to a distance of one thousand yards from the crest of the outer parapet of the work, the restrictions enumerated in clause (a) shall apply with the following additional limitations, namely:--_ _(i) no building, wall, bank or other construction of permanent materials above the ground shall be maintained otherwise than with the written approval of the General Officer Commanding the District and on such conditions as he may prescribe, and no such building, wall bank or other construction shall be erected:_ _Provided that, with the written approval of the General Officer Commanding the District and on such conditions as he may prescribe, huts, fences or other constructions of wood or other materials, easily destroyed or removed, may be maintained, erected, added to or altered:_ _Provided also, that any person having control of the land as owner, lessee or occupier shall be bound forthwith to destroy or remove such huts, fences or other constructions, without compensation, upon an order in writing signed by the General Officer Commanding the District; and_ _(ii) live hedges, rows or clumps or trees or orchards shall not be maintained, planted, added to or altered otherwise than with the written approval of the General Officer Commanding the District and on such conditions as he may prescribe._ _(c) Within a third boundary which may extend to a distance of five hundred yards from the crest of the outer parapet of the work, the restrictions enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) shall apply with the following additional limitation, namely:--_ _no building or other construction on the surface, and no excavation, building or other construction below the surface, shall be maintained or erected:_ W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 17 _Provided that, with the written approval of the Commanding Officer and on such conditions as he may prescribe, a building or other construction on the surface may be maintained and open railings and dry brush-wood fences may be exempted from this prohibition.”_ 21. Section 8 thereunder deals with marking out, measuring and other consequences to be undertaken by the District Collector, which stipulates that, as soon as may be after the publication of the declaration aforesaid, the Collector shall cause the land to be marked out and measured, and shall also prepare a register and a detailed plan, which shall be on a scale not smaller than six inches to the mile, showing accurately every building, tree and other obstruction. Section 9 deals with notice to the persons interested. The rest of the provisions of Act, 1903, would show that, if any person is affected by the declaration so made and notifications issued in accordance with the declaration made, is entitled to raise claim for damages in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Act, 1903, and the restriction of power conferred under Sec.3 of Act, 1903. From the counter affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent, it is categorically admitted that an access road is not a subject matter taken care of under Act, 1903. However, the contention raised is that, the Municipality ought to have taken into account the access road for facilitating W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 18 access to the building in question. 22. That apart, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the judgment in O.S.No.5 of 2012 dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kannur, in which the 4[th] respondent as well as the Secretary to Government of India were parties, among others. It was a suit considered by the civil court after taking out notice under Order 1, Rule 8 of CPC, and is in respect of the road under question in this writ petition. After elaborate discussion of the matter, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs therein, viz., Shaji Jayarajan and others, by granting a mandatory injunction directing the 1[st] defendant therein i.e., the 4[th] respondent herein to remove the obstructions which are illegally placed in points A and B in Ext.C4 plan. Further, the 4[th] respondent herein, is restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from causing any obstruction in the use of plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs or other general public and from causing any obstruction to the plaint schedule property. There is no dispute that the property dealt with thereunder is the road in question used by the petitioner as access to the building in question. It is also pointed out that, no appeal was preferred against W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 19 the judgment, and therefore, the judgment and decree has become binding on the 4[th] respondent herein. The said judgment is made part of this writ petition. 23. That apart, it is clearly evident that, petitioner has carried out the construction on the basis of a revised building permit granted by the Municipality. According to the petitioner, what is remaining in the building at the time of issuance of Ext.P17 order was minor works with respect to the interior of the building, and therefore, the construction of the building as such was over. It is also an admitted fact that, occupancy certificate was issued to ground plus three floors, the sole question remains is in respect of 4[th] and 5[th] floors. In my considered view, petitioner has carried out the construction on the basis of a revised building permit issued by the Secretary of the 2[nd] respondent Municipality. The question with respect to the construction carried out on the basis of a permit was considered by this Court in ' _**Heera Construction (P) Ltd.'**_ ( _supra_ ), and held that since the construction was carried out in accordance with the permit secured from a competent authority, the laches on the part of the Municipality to secure NOC from other statutory authorities, cannot, in any manner, put the builder in W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 20 prejudice. In view of the proposition of law so laid down by this Court in ' _**Heera Construction (P) Ltd.'**_ ( _supra_ ), I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of the same. 24. Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, the revised building permit issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of the 2[nd] respondent was in accordance with law, and therefore, the building constructed by the petitioner cannot be said to be bad for want of NOC from the 4[th] respondent. However, it is clear from Ext.P17 that there are certain violations _vis-a-vis_ the building permit secured by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that, if there is any such defects existing, petitioner is entitled to file an application for regularization, taking into account the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularisation of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018. In view of the matter, those violations referred to in Ext.P17 regarding the Rules, 1999 are left open, and if the petitioner makes any application for regularization of construction carried out in violation of the revised building permit or if the petitioner rectifies the defects in the construction carried out, the Municipality will be at W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 21 liberty to consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Therefore, I quash Ext.P17 to the extent it holds, non-securing of NOC from the 4[th] respondent is bad/illegal. Petitioner will be guided by the consequential action taken by the Secretary of the 2[nd] respondent, as observed and directed above. The writ petition is disposed of with the observations and directions contained above. ## **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** **JUDGE** W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 22 ## **APPENDIX** ||**APPENDIX**| |---|---| |**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE**| ||**SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 2-7-2008**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**COPY OF THE REVISED BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED**| ||**BY THE MUNICIPALITY.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA**| ||**FINANCIAL CORPORATION EVIDENCING AVAILING OF**| ||**LOAN FROM THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3-10-2010 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE MUNICIPALITY WITH**| ||**A COPY TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-4-2007**| ||**COMMUNICATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE**| ||**MUNICIPALITY INTIMATING NO OBJECTION TO**| ||**ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT TO THE PETITIONER FOR**| ||**GROUND PLUS 3 FLOORS PLUS TERRACE, HOTEL**| ||**BUILDING.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20-8-2007**| ||**FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY TO**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**COPY OF THE NOC FURNISHED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE MUNICIPALITY FOR**| ||**CONSTRUCTION OF A 15 STORIED BUILDING IN THE**| ||**ADJACENT PLOT.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE IST**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**10-11-2010.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21-10-2010**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT**| ||**COLLECTOR.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE DISTRICT**| ||**COLLECTOR TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3-12-2010**| ||**ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY**| ||**TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18-11-2010 ISSUED**| ||**BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY TO THE**| ||**PETITIONER.**| W.P.(C) No.16245 of 2014 23 |**EXHIBIT P13**|**COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE**| |---|---| ||**SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE EXT.P13 NOTICE.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-3-2011 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE GOVERNMENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE**| ||**MUNICIPALITY.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2011 IN**| ||**W.P(C)11570 OF 2011.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)11570 OF 2011**| ||**DATED 25.3.2013**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2013 AS G.O.**| ||**(RT)NO.2048/13/LSGD ISSUED BY THE IST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENTS'**|| |**EXHIBITS :**|| |**EXHIBIT R4(A)**|**A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER**| ||**NO.3001/1/Q1(PC) DATED 11.04.2007 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(B)**|**A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE**| ||**NO.59/2014 DATED 04.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNUR.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(C)**|**A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE**| ||**INCOMING DAK REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE**| ||**PARTICULAR DATE MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(D)**|**A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF**| ||**THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 04.06.2014 IN**| ||**WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14013 OF 2014(B).**| //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/-