Vincent and Alex v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **WEDNESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 24234 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**||**VINCENT**| |---|---|---| |||**AGED 56 YEARS**| |||**S/O. OUSEPHKUTTY, PUNNASSERY HOUSE, P.O. MICHLEGIRI,**| |||**IDUKKI - 685620.**| |**2**||**ALEX**| |||**S/O. OUSEPHKUTTY, PUNNASSERY HOUSE, P.O.**| |||**PIOUSNAGAR,IDUKKI - 685620.**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN**| |**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**THE STATE OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,**| |||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.**| |**2**||**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR**| |||**IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI - 685603.**| |**3**||**THE TAHSILDAR**| |||**DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI - 685613.**| |**4**||**THE VILLAGE OFFICER**| |||**MARAYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI -**| |||**685620.**| |**5**||**D. PHALGUNAN**| |||**"SUKUMARAVELI HOUSE", P.O. POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA -**| |||**688526, ALAPPUZHA.**| |**6**||**THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.**| ## **BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4 AND R6** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No. 24234 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of January, 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned decisions of the respondents in refusing to grant mutation, transfer of registry and to accept basic land tax in respect of the subject property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 registered sale deeds. 2. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: _“(a) Call for the records leading upto Ext.P17 order and to quash the same by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction;_ _(b) declare that the petitioners are entitled to have mutation effected in the land records as applied for under Ext P14 application, in view of Exts P1 and P2 deeds of sale and Exts P3 and P4 encumbrance certificates, as provided for under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1996;_ _(c) issues a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 3[rd] respondent to immediately effect mutation in the land records, as sought for under ExtP14 application, and as mandated under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 and in view of Ext. P15 judgment;”_ 3. Heard Sri. Anil Sivaraman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 4 and 6. Though notices have been duly served on the contesting respondent W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 3 No.5, there is no appearance for that party. 4. From the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar had issued Ext.P5 patta dated 3.7.1995 assigning 1 acre of land in survey No.277/1 in Marayoor Village, Devikulam Taluk, Idukki Revenue District, in favour of the 5[th] respondent. It appears that the assignment of the said land as per Ext.P5 was in respect of unoccupied land and going by the provisions of Rule 8(1A) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules as stood then, such land so granted by way of patta was heritable, but could be alienated only after the period of three years from the date of grant. That eversince the issuance of Ext.P2 patta, the 5[th] respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the same was duly mutated in his name as per the revenue records and thandaper No.1275 of Marayur Village was also duly allotted to the said property of the 5[th] respondent and the basic land tax was also accepted from him as is evident from Ext.P6 land tax receipt dated 1.10.2002. Later, the 5[th] respondent had sold the said properties covered by Ext.P5 patta in favour of the two petitioners herein as per Ext.P1 registered sale deed No.734/03 dated 20.2.2003 of SRO Devikulam and Ext.P2 registered sale deed No.733/03 of SRO Devikulam, both having an extent of 50 cents each and thus total extent being 1 Acre. Exts.P3 and P4 are the encumbrance certificates W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 4 issued in favour of two petitioners herein in respect of the above subject property. 5. Later, the petitioners had submitted repeated requests for grant of mutation, transfer of registry and for acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the subject property covered by Exts.P1 and P2. Since no action was taken thereon by respondents 3 and 4, the petitioners had made enquires and it could be learnt that the 2[nd] respondent District Collector has issued Ext.P7 order dated 10.1.2013 ordering that since 2 acres of land in survey No.167/1 of Machumala Village, Peerumedu Taluk was also assigned to the 5[th] respondent on 5.11.1998 for which patta was issued to him on 22.6.1999, then Ext.P5 patta issued in favour of the 5[th] respondent in resurvey No.277/1 of Marayur Village may be cancelled with immediate effect and to report compliance. The said direction has been given by the 2[nd] respondent District Collector as per Ext.P7 to the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar. The petitioners were informed that it was on account of the directions of the 2[nd] respondent District Collector as per Ext.P7 that stands in the way of grant of mutation and transfer of registry in favour of the petitioners. 6. Thereupon, on coming to know about Ext.P7 order, the 5[th] respondent had submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 7.8.2003 before the 2[nd] respondent District Collector pointing out that what he W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 5 had actually sought for was grant of another one Acre of land in Marayur Village in addition to 1 Acre assigned as per Ext.P5 and that the respondents had granted by way of assignment another 2 Acres of land in Manchumala Village as referred to in Ext.P7 and that the said assignment of 2 Acres of property made in his name in Manchumala Village may be cancelled, since he had already sold the property covered by Ext.P5 patta in favour of the petitioners as per EXts.P1 and P2 deeds. The 1[st] petitioner had also submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 7.8.2003 before the 2[nd] respondent District Collector requesting that Ext.P7 order may be rescinded and that the request for mutation and transfer of registry may be granted etc. 7. It appears that after receipt of Exts.P8 and P9 representations, the 2[nd] respondent District Collector had issued Ext.P10 order dated 12.06.2003, whereby the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar was directed to enquire and report of the possibility of making such assignment as sought for in Ext.P8 to the 5[th] respondent. The petitioners would point out that in view of Ext.P10 order dated 12.06.2003, further proceedings for cancellation of Ext.P5 patta as proposed in Ext.P7 was not pursued by the respondents. 8. Later, the 5[th] respondent had submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 10.12.2003 before the 2[nd] respondent stating W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 6 that the 2 acres of land assigned to him in Manchumala Village of Peerumedu Taluk (about which reference is made in Ext.P7) is apparently forest land and that the Divisional Forest Officer, Peerumedu had warned him that if he takes possession thereon, coercive action would be taken against him under the Forest Act etc., and that therefore assignment of 2 Acres of land made in his favour in Manchumala Village may be cancelled and that Ext.P5 patta may be retained in his name. This appears to have been made so as to enable the petitioners to get mutation of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2. Since no effective action was forthcoming on Exts.P8, P9 and P11, the 5[th] respondent had also submitted Ext.P12 representation dated 9.2.2005 before the 2[nd] respondent stating that since he has sold the property covered by Ext.P5 patta only after the expiry of the waiting period in that regard stipulated in the Rules, further assignment of land made in his favour in respect of 2 Acre of property in Manchumala Village of Peerumedu Taluk may be cancelled, so as to retain the property covered by Ext.P5 patta etc. Ext.P12 representation has been forwarded by the 2[nd] respondent to the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar as per Ext.P13 letter dated 7.1.2006 directing him to conduct enquiry in the matter to ascertain whether the transfer of the land covered by Ext.P5 patta made by the 5[th] respondent in favour of the petitioners is in accordance with the W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 7 conditions of the patta and that in case it is found to be violative of the conditions, to initiate appropriate proceedings, to cancel Ext.P5 etc. The petitioners would point out that there has not been any follow up action by respondents 3 and 4 pursuant to Exts.P10 and P13 orders. 9. Later, the petitioners could learn on enquiry that no action whatsoever has been taken by the competent patta granting authority (3[rd] respondent Tahsildar) to cancel Ext.P5 patta in the manner known to law and that what remained in paper was only Ext.P7 letter dated 10.1.2003 issued by the District Collector to the 2[nd] respondent to take steps to cancel Ext.P7 patta etc. The petitioners had thereupon submitted Ext.P14 petition dated 7.1.2017 before the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar seeking grant of mutation, transfer of registry and acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the subject property without any further delay. Since no action was forthcoming on Ext.P14, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.10006/2017 and this Court as per Ext.P15 judgment dated 23.8.2017 had disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent Tahsildar to take a considered decision on the petition as per Ext.P14 herein within three weeks etc. The petitioners thereafter had immediately forwarded Ext.P15 judgment to the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P16 letter dated 26.10.2017. Since no W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 8 steps were taken by the 3[rd] respondent to comply with the directions in Ext.P15 judgment, the petitioners had constrained to institute Contempt of Court Case (Civil), C.O.C.No.316/2018 (arising out of Ext.P15 W.P.(C)No.10006/2017) before this Court and the matter was adjourned for furnishing of instructions and thereafter it was informed that the 3[rd] respondent has issued Ext.P17 order dated 15.2.2018 rejecting the request for mutation and transfer of registry on the ground that the transfer of the property made by the 5[th] respondent in respect of the property covered by Ext.P5 in favour of the petitioners as per Exts.P1 and P2 is illegal and ultra vires, since the 5[th] respondent was already assigned another 2 Acres of land in Manchumala Village of Peerumedu Taluk etc. Thereafter the petitioners had approached the 6[th] respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue by submitting Ext.P18 petition dated 9.3.2018 complaining that the non-grant of mutation and transfer of registry is illegal and improper etc. The 6[th] respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue has thereupon issued Ext.P19 proceedings dated 2.5.2018, whereby the 2[nd] respondent District Collector was directed to enquire into the matter and the 4[th] respondent Village Officer to initiate appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law. That inspite of specific directions issued by the 6[th] respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue as per Ext.P19 order dated W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 9 2.5.2018, no effective action is forthcoming from the respondents more particularly, respondents 2, 3 and 4 etc. It is in the light of these factual averments, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with the aforementioned prayers. 10. At the outset it has to be noted that this Court has already held in the judgment dated 16.11.2018 in W.P.(C)No.17443/2017 in the case _**Joby Mathew**_ v. _**State of Kerala**_ and others reported in **2019 (1) KHC 276** that the right of alienation conferred on the assignee as per Rule 8 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules 1964 framed by the Subordinate Legislature under Section 7(1) of the above said Act and which is approved by the Legislature as per Section 7(2) thereof cannot be taken away or whittled down by the patta granting authority by stipulating a contra condition in terms of section 8 of the Act. It is also pertinent to note that this Court in the judgment in _**Bhaskaran**_ v. _**State of Kerala**_ reported in _**2010 (2) KLT 908**_ has held that the amendments made to Rule 8(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules as per SRO No.59/2009 which stipulated restriction in the period of alienation, has only prospective effect from the date of issuance of such amendment notification and will regulate only pattas issued on or after the issuance of such prospective amendment notifications and will not govern and regulate the pattas issued prior to such prospective amendment W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 10 notifications etc., and that such cases in respect of pattas issued prior to such amendment will be regulated by the provisions of the earlier Rules. So that in a case where at the time of the grant of patta, where Rule 8 permitted alienation or alienation after a specified period, then a subsequent amendment introducing the longer period of restriction for alienation, and which is only prospective, will not affect the pattas issued before such prospective amendment notification and in the case of such pattas, the same will be regulated by the pre-existing norms. So, to address the issue as to whether the transfer of property made by the 5[th] respondent in respect of the property covered by Ext.P5 patta in favour of the petitioners as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds is legal and proper, what is to be examined is as to the Rule which prevailed at the time of issuance of Ext.P5 patta dated 3.7.1995 and if the provisions of Rule 8 permitted alienation unconditionally as in Rule 8(1) or it permitted alienation only after the period of 3 years as in the case of Rule 8(1A) which related only to unoccupied lands, then any conditions to the contrary stipulated in the patta by the patta granting authority under the guise of the powers under Section 8, cannot whittle down or take away the right of alienation as conferred by the Rules. This position of law has been categorically declared by this Court in the judgment dated 16.11.2018 in W.P.(C)No.17443/2017 in the case _**Joby Mathew**_ v. W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 11 _**State & Ors**_ **.** [2019 (1) KHC 276], wherein this Court has held that the right of alienation conferred on the assignee as per Rule 8 framed under Section 7(1) (j) of the Act, which is approved by the Legislature as per Section 7(2), cannot be taken away or abridged by the patta granting authority by stipulating contra condition in purported exercise of the powers under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, what should be examined is as to the date of issuance of Ext.P5 patta and the provisions in Rule 8 as it stood at the time of issuance of patta. In the instance case, it is the case of the petitioners that Ext.P5 patta was issued on 30.7.1995 and that since the patta related to unoccupied lands, the benefit under Rule 8(1) permitting alienation without any restriction, was not applicable. So the land covered by Ext.P5 patta granted on 3.7.1995 could have been alienated after the period of three years from the date of issuance of that patta in view of the provisions made in Rule 8 (1A) which is applicable for unoccupied lands. There does not appear to be any serious dispute regarding the above said factual aspects. So it is only to be held that the transfer of property covered by Ext.P5 patta dated 3.7.1995 in favour of the petitioners as per Exts.P1 deed dated 20-2-2003 and and Ext.P2 deed dated 20.2.2003 cannot be said to be illegal or ultra vires as far as the provisions contained in Rule 8(1A) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules concerned and it is accordingly ordered and W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 12 declared. In that regard, any contra condition imposed by the patta granting authority cannot take away that right. 11. However, the next issue to be considered is as to whether the grant of patta for 1 Acre to the 5[th] respondent as per Ext.P5 dated 3.7.1995 will get vitiated on account of subsequent assignment made to him for another 2 Acres of land in Manchumala Village of Peerumedu Taluk as referred to in Ext.P7. It appears that the stand of the official respondents is that the maximum extent of land that could be assigned to a person like the 5[th] respondent at the relevant time was only up to 2 Acres and that therefore, since the 5[th] respondent has been granted assignment of additional land of 2 Acres in Manchumala Village as referred to in Ext.P7, the grant made in his favour initially as per Ext.P5 is illegal and improper etc. In this regard, the petitioner would contend that as per the provisions contained in Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 as it stood at the time of issuance of Ext.P5 patta dated 3.7.1995 as well as the subsequent pattas dated 22.6.1999 in respect of the 2 acres of additional land in Manchumala Village as referred to in Ext.P7 is concerned, the maximum extent of dry land assignable in hilly tracts could be upto 3 acres for a family. That the provisions under Rule 5(1)(a)was amended only in 2005 long after the grant of patta as per Ext.P5 and 1999 patta referred to in Ext.P7 and that W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 13 therefore, on this basis, the petitioners would contend that there was no illegality or impropriety in assigning altogether 3 acres of land to the 5[th] respondent consisting of 1 acre as per Ext.P5 patta dated 3-7-1995 and the balance 2 Acres covered by 1999 patta referred to in Ext.P7 etc. Further, the petitioners would contend that even if it is assumed that the maximum extent of land that could be assigned to the 5[th] respondent at that time was only 2 Acres, then the grant originally made as per Ext.P5 dated 3-7-1995 was only for 1 Acre and therefore, action could have been taken only for canceling 1 Acre out of the 2 Acres subsequently assigned to the 5[th] respondent in Manchumala Village as per the 1999 patta referred to in Ext.P7 and that therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalised by taking detrimental action as against Ext.P5 etc. These are aspects, which should be considered by the 2[nd] respondent District Collector, as more particularly, the 5[th] respondent has not entered appearance before this Court, though he has been duly served. So also some of the factual aspects that needs determination could be rendered by the 2[nd] respondent District Collector after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the 5[th] respondent. So the secondary issue need not now be considered by this Court. 12. Further it appears that the request made by none other than the 5[th] respondent in his Ext.P8 representation dated 7.8.2003, W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 14 Ext.P11 representation dated 10.12.2003 and Ext.P12 dated 9.2.2005 have not been considered by the 2[nd] respondent inspite of lapse of long time. Moreover, none other than the 2[nd] respondent has taken the view in Ext.P10 order dated 12.6.2003 that steps should be taken by the subordinate revenue officials concerned to examine whether 1 more Acre is assignable in favour of the 5[th] respondent in Marayur Village, presumably so as to cancel the patta granted to him in the year 1999 of 2 Acres in Manchumala Village. So also, the 6[th] respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue has taken the view in Ext.P19 dated 2.5.2018 that the matter should be enquired into detail by the 2[nd] respondent District Collector and that the 4[th] respondent Village Officer should also examine the request of the petitioner for grant of mutation, transfer of registry etc. in accordance with law. This order has been issued by the 6[th] respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue as per Ext.P19 only after issuance of the impugned Ext.P17 rejection order dated 15.2.2018 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar. 13. After hearing the parties this Court is of the considered view that the impugned Ext.P17 rejection order dated 15.2.2018 issued by the 3[rd] Tahsildar requires serious interdiction at the hands of this Court and the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the 2[nd] respondent District Collector. Moreover, the 3[rd] W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 15 respondent Tahsildar has only blandly stated in Ext.P17 that the transfer of Ext.P5 patta in favour of the petitioners is illegal and no reasons are stated as to why it is illegal and improper. The aspects relating to the conditions of alienability as per Rule 8(1)(a) as well as the other contentions raised by the petitioners based on Rule 5(1)(a) as it is stood at the relevant time had not even been remotely considered by the 3[rd] respondent. None of the aspects stated by the 5[th] respondent in his representation as per Exts.P8, P11 and P12 etc have been even remotely considered and addressed by the 3[rd] respondent and he could only blandly say that merely because the 5[th] respondent has been subsequently assigned another 2 Acres of property in Manchumala Village, the mutation cannot be granted in respect of the property covered by Exts.P1, P2 and P5 etc. Hence, as the matter is to be remitted for reconsideration of the 2[nd] respondent, it is only appropriate that the impugned Ext.P17 order is interdicted more so particularly in the light of the views of the 2[nd] respondent District Collector and 6[th] respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue in proceedings as in Exts.P10 and P19 etc. Moreover, as the remit should facilitate independent consideration of various issues, it is only just and fair that Ext.P-7 is also interdicted. Hence, to facilitate a proper remit, Ext.P-7 dated 10.1.2003 issued by the 2[nd] respondent will stand rescinded and set aside. W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 16 14. Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P17 rejection order dated 15.2.2018 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar will stand set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the 2[nd] respondent District Collector for consideration of the entire issues afresh. The 2[nd] respondent District Collector will issue notices of hearing to the petitioners and the 5[th] respondent and will take up the matters in Exts.P8, P11 and P12 submitted by the 5[th] respondent as well as Exts.P9 and P14 applications submitted by the petitioners. This Court has already declared and ordered that the transfer of property covered by Ext.P5 in favour of the petitioners as per Exts.P1 and P2 cannot be faulted for having violated the period of alienation in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in _**Joby Mathew’s case**_ (supra) reported in _**2010 (2) KLT 908**_ . The other contentions raised by the petitioners that based on Rule 5(1)(a) as its stood then as referred to herein above should be duly considered and adverted to by the 2[nd] respondent. The stand taken by the 2[nd] respondent in the representations as per Exts.P8, P9 and P12 should also be duly considered and adverted to. The 2[nd] respondent will consider and decide as to whether the total permissible extent of land that could have been assigned to the 5[th] respondent at the relevant time was upto 3 Acres of dry land in hilly tracks or only upto 2 Acres and whether the assignment made in favour of the 5[th] respondent of 1 W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 17 acre of land covered by Ext.P5 and the additional 2 Acres covered by 1999 patta in Manchumala Village, is justifiable in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 5(1)(a) as it stood at the time of issuance of those pattas. If it is so found, then there cannot be any impediments in conceding to the request made by the petitioners for grant of mutation, transfer of registry and acceptance of basic land tax, that may be allowed in accordance with law. But on the other hand, if the 2[nd] respondent comes to the conclusion that as per the rule position, only total extent of 2 acres could have been assigned in favour of the 5[th] respondent at the relevant time in the years 1995 and 1999, then the above said specific contention of the petitioners that the 1 Acre originally allotted in 1995 as per Ext.P5 cannot be disturbed and at best what could be disturbed is only 1 acre out of 2 Acres assigned to R5 as per 1999 patta in Manchumala Village should be seriously considered and examined. Needless to say, the issues on Rule 8 already decided by this Court, cannot be re-opened by the respondents. 15. A considered decision by the 2[nd] respondent is to be rendered on all these aspects after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and 5[th] respondent. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the 2[nd] respondent without much delay preferably within a period of two W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 18 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. sd/- ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** acd W.P.(C)No.24234/2018 19 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED DEED DTD. 20.2.2003. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED DEED DTD. 20.2.2003. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PATTA DATED 3.07.1995. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.10.2002. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 10.01.2003. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 7.08.2003. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 7.08.2003. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.06.2003. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY REPRESENTATION DATED 10.12.2003. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY REPRESENTATION DATED 9.02.2005. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT 17.1.2006. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 7.01.2017. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2017. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26.10.2017. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2018. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 9.03.18. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.05.2018.** TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE.