Thomas Kuruvila v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J)** **PETITIONER:** **THOMAS KURUVILA AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KURUVILA, PLAKKATTU HOUSE, CEMENT PALAM, CHINNAKKANAL KARA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI-685 618.** **BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.UMMUL FIDA SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**| ||**REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.**| |**2**|**DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O,**| ||**IDUKKI 685 603.**| |**3**|**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**DEVIKULAM TALUK, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS,**| ||**IDUKKI-685 613.**| |**4**|**TAHSILDAR,**| ||**UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI-685 554.**| |**5**|**ASSISTANT CARDAMOM SETTLEMENT OFFICER,**| ||**KUMALI, IDUKKI–685 554.**| |**R1-R5**|**BY SRI.H.HANIL KUMAR,SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be a resident and owner in possession of 6.75 Acres of land in Sy.No.12/1-B, 34/2 and 34/1 of Chinnakanal Village of Idukki District, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to repossess the 6.75 Acres of land comprising in Sy.No.12/1-B, 34/1 and 34/2 of Chinnakanal Village of Idukki District covered by Ext.P5 Kuthakapattom lease. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the board put up on the front side of the aforesaid property forthwith; and a declaration that the property of the petitioner cannot be repossessed without notice and giving him an opportunity to prove his title and claim over that property. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner obtained 79 cents of property in Sy.No.12/1-B, 34/2 of Chinnakanal Village from one Rajan, vide Ext.P1 sale deed No.40/2007 dated 05.01.2007 of Sub Registrar Office, Rajakumari. The document marked as Ext.P2 is an agreement dated 05.01.2007, on stamp paper worth Rs.50/-, in respect of 5.96 acres of land, which is stated to be lying adjacent to the aforesaid -3- ## W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) 79 cents of property in Sy.No.12/1-B, 34/2 of Chinnakanal Village, entered into between the petitioner and certain persons, who are stated to be the legal heirs of Madaswamy of Chinnakanal Village, who is the father of the aforesaid Rajan. The document marked as Ext.P3 is the ownership certificate dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary of Chinnakanal Grama Panchayath, in respect of building No.VIII/745 in the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The document marked as Ext.P4 is the tax receipt dated 02.06.2020 in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 and Ext.P5 is a proceedings dated 09.06.2020 of the 5[th] respondent Assistant Cardamom Settlement Officer, Kumily leasing out certain extent of land to the petitioner for a period of 20 years, whereby the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,130/- as premium for a period of 20 years, starting from 09.06.2020. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, on 22.8.2020, the officials under the 2[nd] respondent District Collector, without serving any notice to the petitioner, put up a board 100 meters away from his property indicating that the property belongs to the Government. The petitioner came to know about the said fact from Ext.P6 press report, which appeared in Mathrubhumi Daily dated 23.08.2020. Feeling aggrieved, the -4- ## W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court, on 26.08.2020, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. On 07.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 5 and sought time to get instructions. 5. On 29.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was pointed out that the petitioner has filed a memo dated 22.09.2020 seeking an order to dismiss this writ petition as 'not pressed'. The aforesaid memo reads thus; “1. It is submitted that after filing the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court it is understood from the office of the District Collector that they have not taken possession of the petitioner's land or intends to proceed against the property of the petitioner. 2. It is hereby submitted that the petitioner does not intend to further proceed with the above said matter. In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to the petitioner to move afresh whenever new cause of action arises.” (underline supplied) The learned Government Pleader sought adjournment, since a copy of the not press memo was not seen in his file. W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) -5- 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5[th] respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 7. On 19.10.2020, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to make submission with reference to Ext.R5(j) document produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent. 8. On 17.11.2020, an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner was placed on record. Paragraphs 2 to 4 and also the last paragraph of the said affidavit reads thus; “2. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction directing the respondents not to repossess the petitioner's 6.75 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.12/1-B, 34/1 & 34/2 of Chinnakanal Village of Idukki district covered by Exhibit P5 Kuthakapattom lease. 3. Subsequent to filing of the matter I came to understand that the District Collector has not taken possession of my property or intending to proceed against my property and thereby I filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the above writ petition and memo was filed on 22.09.2020. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed counter affidavit as directed by this Hon'ble Court on 11.09.2020. Along with the counter affidavit they have produced Exhibit R5(j), a reply affidavit furnished by me to a notice dated 10.08.2020 issued by the 5[th] respondent. However, with respect of the W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) -6- notice or Exhibit R5(j) reply, there is no averment in the writ petition. Thereby, this Hon'ble Court has directed me to file an additional affidavit explaining reason. 4. The above writ petition was filed on 26.08.2020 on the basis of a newspaper report published in Mathrubhumi daily dated 23.08.2020 stating that the Revenue officers have repossessed my property and put up a board in my property. In fact my only daughter's husband John Paul expired a few days before the newspaper report and I was at my daughter's house at Cherthala. Thereby I had given instructions to my counsel to file the above writ petition from there and my driver only handed over the papers to my counsel, which he could get it from my house at Manimala. It is only due to the above said reason that I could not properly instruct my counsel with respect to the earlier notice issued by the 5[th] respondent or about the reply furnished by me. The above fact was not mentioned in the above writ petition only due to the above said reasons. There are no wilful latches or negligence on my part or on the part of my lawyer. In the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to kindly excuse the above mistake on my part and allow me to withdraw the above writ petition. The above affidavit is filed as directed by this Hon'ble Court.” 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. -7- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) 10. As already noticed, in this writ petition, which is one filed on 26.08.2020, a memo dated 22.09.2020 was filed seeking an order to dismiss this writ petition as 'not pressed'. In paragraph 1 of that memo it is stated that as follows; “It is submitted that after filing the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court it is understood from the office of the District Collector that they have not taken possession of the petitioner's land or intends to proceed against the property ” of the petitioner. 11. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R5(j) reply dated 19.08.2020 submitted by the petitioner, before the 5[th] respondent Assistant Cardamom Settlement Officer is placed on record, which is one submitted by the petitioner on receipt of a communication No.A5-167/2020 dated 10.08.2020 of the 5[th] respondent, in a proceedings initiated by the said respondent to cancel Ext.P5 order dated 09.06.2020. In the counter affidavit, the specific stand taken by the 5[th] respondent is that, it is based on Ext.R5(i) report dated 21.07.2020 of the Tahsildar (LR), Udumabanchola, the 5[th] respondent initiated steps to cancel Ext.P5 order and issued communication dated 10.08.2020 to the petitioner. As per Ext.R5(i) report, the land occupied by the petitioner is in Sy.No.48, 49, 12/1A and 20/1 of Chinnakkanal Village. In response to communication -8- ## W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) dated 10.08.2020, the petitioner submitted Ext.R5(j) reply dated 19.08.2020. Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the counter affidavit reads thus; “13. In order to get the clarity, the 5[th] respondent brought the issue before the Tahsildar (LR), Udumbanchola for fresh enquiry. As per his report No.14982/20 dated 21.07.2020, it revealed that the land occupied by the petitioner is covered in Survey Nos.48, 49, 12/1-A, 20/1 of Chinnakanal Village. True copy of the report submitted by the Tahsildar (LR), Udumbanchola along with lithomap dated 21.07.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(i). 14. On the basis of the report of the Tahsildar (LR), Udumbanchola, this respondent has initiated steps to cancel Exhibit P5 order dated 09.06.2020 and issued notice to the petitioner for hearing. In reply to the notice, the petitioner filed a written statement on 19.08.2020 in which he was stated that authority should rectify the mistake in the survey number. True copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner dated 19.08.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(j). 15. It is submitted that the petitioner is holding 79 cents of land based on Exhibit P1 sale deed. This office had not issued any cardamom lease in favour of Madasami as averred by the petitioner. Hence, illegal claim of the petitioner over the vast area of Government land based on alleged cardamom lease issued in favour of Madasami is not sustainable. 16. Considering the fraudulent way applied by the petitioner, -9- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) the respondent has submitted a detailed report to the Cardamom Settlement Officer (District Collector, Idukki) on 19.08.2020 to cancel Exhibit P5 order.” 12. The petitioner, who has submitted Ext.R5(j) reply dated 19.08.2020 on receipt of a communication No.A5-167/2020 dated 10.08.2020 of the 5[th] respondent, in a proceedings initiated by the said respondent to cancel Ext.P5 order dated 09.06.2020 has made an attempt to get the writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with a memo stating that, it is understood from the office of the District Collector that they have not taken possession of the petitioner's land or intend to proceed against the property of the petitioner. On 26.08.2020, the petitioner filed this writ petition, which is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner on 25.08.2020. In the writ petition, the petitioner has suppressed the proceedings initiated by the 5[th] respondent for cancelling Ext.P5 order. The conduct of the petitioner in filing this writ petition, suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court has to be deprecated in the strongest terms and I do so. 13. In the counter affidavit, the specific stand taken by the 5[th] respondent is that, the property in question has no connection with Sy.No.12/1-B, 34/2 and 34/1 of Chinnakanal Village as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner, with the active support of the then -10- ## W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) Deputy Tahsildar and the Village Assistant has raised an illegal claim over Government land. The District Collector, after taking note of the role of those officials in extending their active support to the petitioner to grab Government land, placed them under suspension, by Ext.R5(a) order dated 24.08.2020. The petitioner, with the help of the officials in the department obtained Ext.P5 order fraudulently. The 5[th] respondent issued Ext.P5 order based on a false report of the Deputy Tahsildar, i.e., Ext.R5(b) report dated 09.06.2020. The Village Assistant submitted Ext.R5(c) mahazar dated 20.02.2020, in which it was stated that the property in question was leased out in favour of Sri.Madasami as per File No.LWA 1274/62, in order to help the petitioner. 14. In the counter affidavit, the specific stand taken by the 5[th] respondent is that, in order to establish possession over the land occupied by the Kerala State Electricity Board, covered in Sy.No.48, 49, 12/1-A and 20/1 of Chinnakkanal Village, the petitioner moved Ext.R5(d) application dated 06.01.2020 before the 5[th] respondent, for cardamom lease. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the counter affidavit read thus; “8. In order to establish the possession over the valuable land under the possession of the Kerala State Electricity -11- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) Board, the petitioner moved an application dated 06.01.2020 before the 5[th] respondent for cardamom lease. True copy of the Application dated 06.01.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(d). The aforesaid application itself would show that the petitioner is raising claim over the property in question based on the Cardamom land contained in file No.LWA 1274/62. Consequently, the 5[th] respondent forwarded the application through the Deputy Tahsildar, Cardamom Settlement office for enquiry. On 20.02.2020, the Deputy Tahsildar inspected the land and prepared an enquiry report. According to him, the property in question is comprised in Survey No.34 Part of Chinnakanal Village which was earlier leased out to one Madasami as per the Office File No.LWA 1274/62. In the enquiry report cited above, the Deputy Tahsildar made serious lapse as he failed to note that property pertains to file No.LWA 1274/62 deals with Survey No.120/29, 120/34 of Chinnakanal Village (now in Rajakumari Village). Moreover, the Deputy Tahsildar has not made any comments in the enquiry report regarding the difference in Survey Number contained in File No.LWA 1274/62 as well. In order to cover the illegality and to occupy valuable Government land, the petitioner and the Deputy Tahsildar relied Office File No.LWA 1274/62. 9. It is respectfully submitted that the office of the 5[th] respondent had not issued any Cardamom lease in favour of Madasami as alleged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The report and the Mahazar was prepared without cross checking the files contained in File No.LWA 1274/62. In this case, the petitioner raised his claim based on Exhibit P1 sale deed and P2 agreement allegedly executed by the legal heirs -12- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) of Sri.Madasami. As a matter of fact, the property covered in file No.LWA 1274/62 deals with cardamom land which was granted in favour of Sri.M.Muthuraman and M.Paramaraj. True copy of the applications submitted by Sri.M.Muthuraman and M.Paramaraj is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(e) and Exhibit R5(f) respectively. Consequently, the property came under the possession of M.P.Manivelan who transferred the same to one Jimson James. True copy of the proceedings of the 5[th] respondent dated 04.04.2018 in favour of Jimson James is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(g). The remaining portion of the cardamom land included in file No.LWA 1274/62 is now under the possession of Saji Chandy who had obtained lease after remitting premium for a period of 20 years. True copy of the proceedings of the Assistant Cardamom Settlement Officer dated 17.09.2010 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(h). 10. As a matter of fact, the petitioner by virtue of Exhibit P5 order claiming possessory right over the property covered in Survey Nos.48, 49, 20/1 and 12/1-A which is under the possession of the Kerala State Electricity Board and Government. Without considering the nature of the land, after taking note of the enquiry report of the Deputy Tahsildar, the 5[th] respondent issued Exhibit P5 order. Consequently, received premium amount from the petitioner for 20 years commencing from 09.06.2020. Moreover, it was ordered to the Village Officer, Chinnakanal to collect annual rent from the petitioner. However, the Village Officer reported over phone that the land in question was already under enquiry and the same is pending before the Taluk -13- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) Office, Udumbanchola. The 5[th] respondent after taking note of the issue involved in the case, issued another letter dated 10.07.2020 to the Village Officer, Chinnakanal and directed him not to collect annual rent from the petitioner before getting clarity in this matter.” 15. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent, the District Collector, after taking note of the role of the then Deputy Tahsildar and the Village Assistant in extending their active support to the petitioner to grab Government land, has already placed them under suspension, by Ext.R5(a) order dated 24.08.2020. Based on Ext.R5(i) report dated 21.07.2020 of the Tahsildar (LR), Udumabanchola, the 5[th] respondent initiated steps to cancel Ext.P5 order dated 09.06.2020 and issued communication dated 10.08.2020 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.R5(j) reply on 19.08.2020 and the 5[th] respondent shall finalise the proceedings, in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner. The said submission is recorded. 16. In **Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449]** the Apex Court held that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the -14- ## W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) 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 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. 17. In **Prestige Light** 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. 18. In **K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.** -15- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) **[(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. 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". 19. In **K.D. Sharma** _'_ 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'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable -16- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) and prerogative jurisdiction. 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 for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. 20. Therefore, 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 jurisprudence, a litigant who has approached the Court with unclean hands, without disclosing full facts, is not entitled for any reliefs. W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) -17- 21. In **Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana [(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. 22. In **Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi [(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. v. BOC India Limited [(2016) 3 SCC 70]** , the Apex Court held that the observations in **Muthu Karuppan** was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. 23. In **Usha Nanthini v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and another [2018 (2) KHC 89]** this Court held that, -18- ## W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) 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. 24. The law laid down as above by this Court in **Usha Nanthini** was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 21.02.2018 in W.A.No.455 of 2018 and paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads thus; “4. After going through the impugned judgment and the material in the writ appeal, we find that the appellant faces a grave charge-suppressing the material facts and misleading the Court. In fact, Usha Nanthini herself, on the learned Single Judge's direction, filed an affidavit pleading that she may be pardoned “if any wrong information is made in the writ petition”. She pleaded with the Court to permit her to withdraw the writ petition. The learned Single Judge refused - rightly so.” -19- ## W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) 25. In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed imposing a cost of **Rs.50,000/-** (Rupees Fifty thousand only) on the petitioner, which he shall pay to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, an authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 providing free legal service to the weaker sections of the society. Such payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner fails to pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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, in terms of G.O.(Ms.)No.107/2011/RD dated 26.02.2011, whereby 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. The Registry shall issue a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, Kochi. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV -20- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 40/2007 OF SRO RAJAKUMARI DATED 5/1/2007** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 5/1/2007** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CHINNAKANAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DATED 28-02-2008** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 2-06-2020** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 09-06-2020** **EXHIBIT P6 THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 23-08-2020** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 24.08.2020** **EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 09.06.2020 EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 20.02.2020 EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06.01.2020** **EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI.M.MUTHURAMAN** - **EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI.M.PARAMARAJ** **EXHIBIT R5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2018 IN FAVOUR OF JIMSON JAMES EXHIBIT R5(h) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT CARDAMOM SETTLEMENT OFFICER** -21- W.P.(C)No.18100 OF 2020(J) **EXHIBIT R5(i) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR (LR), UDUMBANCHOLA ALONG WITH LITHOMAP DATED 21.07.2020 EXHIBIT R5(j) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.08.2020**