W.P.(C) Nos. 39886/2022 & 40362/2022

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 39886 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** V.VIDHU, AGED 78 YEARSKUNNATHU VEEDU, TC 76/2459, VENPALAVOTTEM, ANAYARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 029. BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALAREP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 388, FLOOR MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. 2 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A) PWD (SOUTHERN CIRCLE), FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 031. 3 ROAD FUND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T. C. 27/287, SPORTS COMPLEX, CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM -695033. 4 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD FUND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, PROJECT DIVISIONAL OFFICE (SMART CITY-KIIFB), TC 15/3039 (1), EAST PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI. K V MANOJ KUMAR (KRFB) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).40362/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** ## **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 40362 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - 1 AJITH KUMAR GAGED 49 YEARSK G BHAVAN, TC 30/217, NSSKRRA HOUSE NO.300, ANAYARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 029. - 2 K.C. SASIDHARANARCHANA, TC 30/221, CIFKA 37, ANAYARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 029. - 3 MANESH STC 93/468, ARCHANA, ANAYARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 029. BY ADVS.V.VINAY S.RAJEEV PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH SARATH K.P. M.S.ANEER ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - 1 STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 388, FLOOR MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. - 2 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A)PWD (SOUTHERN CIRCLE), FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 031. - 3 ROAD FUND DEVELOPMENT BOARDREPRESENTED BY TS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T.C.27/287, SPORTS COMPLEX, CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM 695 033. - 4 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD FUND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, PROJECT DIVISIONAL OFFICE (SMART CITY-KIIFB), TC 15/3039 (1), EAST PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. SRI. K V MANOJ KUMAR (KRFB) 3 ## W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).39886/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 4 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[WP(C) Nos.39886/2022 and 40362/2022]** The petitioners in these writ petitions were in possession of certain properties in Kadakampally village, which were the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of widening the Petta – Anayara- Oruvathilkotta PWD Road under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is the case of the petitioners that their properties were categorised under ‘Category-A’, but only an amount at the rate of Rs. 19,79,213 (Rupees Nineteen lakhs Seventy-Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Thirteen) per Are was awarded by the State. As the issues arising for consideration are identical, these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. The parties and the exhibits referred to in this judgment are as they appear/are marked in W.P (C)No. 39886/2022 unless otherwise indicated. 2. It is the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 39886/2022 that an extent of 1.48 Ares of his property was acquired, and he was awarded an amount of Rs.73,38,765 (Rupees Seventy-Three Lakhs Thirty-Eight W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 5 Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-Five) only, despite a valid claim for higher compensation. It is the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 40362/2022 that an extent of 0.53 Ares of property was acquired from the 1[st] petitioner, and he was awarded an amount of Rs.28,22,200 (Rupees Twenty-Eight lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand and Two Hundred), and from the 2[nd] petitioner, an extent of 0.39 Ares of property was acquired and he was awarded only a total amount of Rs.21,17,168 (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Eight) and from the 3[rd] petitioner an extent of 0.12 Ares of property was acquired and he was awarded only a total amount of Rs.6,10,029 (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten Thousand and Twenty-Nine). It is the case of petitioners in both these writ petitions that they are entitled to a higher compensation at a rate of more than 25 lakhs per cent and that the compensation fixed is grossly inadequate and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 39886 of 2022 was not provided an opportunity to be heard before fixing the land value. It is submitted that the petitioner was not provided with a meeting link to attend the meeting held online, and thereby, he was denied an opportunity of hearing while fixing the value of the land. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 6 27976/2021 before this Court, and this court directed the competent authorities to hear the petitioner and to consider the representations and documents produced/adduced by the petitioner and to take a decision as per the provisions of section 26 of the Act. It is submitted that pursuant to the judgment in the aforesaid case, notice was issued by an incompetent authority. It is submitted that the petitioner again approached this court through W.P.(C) No. 8886/2022, and this court directed the Special Tahsildar (LA) to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and directed the petitioner to produce all documents to substantiate his claim for higher value. It is submitted that the petitioner’s son thereafter produced a written statement and documents to prove title and ownership of the land. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this court _in_ _**Shailaja v State of Kerala and others, 2022 (1) KHC 173**_ to contend that the land owner has a right to be heard by producing relevant documents and other materials. It is submitted that the petitioner had made several representations before the 2[nd] respondent to afford a personal hearing in the matter, but the petitioner was not provided with the opportunity to address his grievances. It is contended that land value fixed without hearing the petitioner is violative of his fundamental right to be heard _._ It is further submitted that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 7 WP(C) No. 40362/2022 also preferred a writ petition, namely WP(C) No. 29693/2021, and that this court directed the authorities to hear the petitioners and to act as per the provisions of Section 26 of the Act. It is contended that the respondents failed to act as per the provisions of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the observation of Division Bench of this Court in _**State of Kerala v S. Babu and others; 2018: KER: 28505**_ ( _**LAA No.51/2014 and connected cases)**_ to contend that acquired properties are situated in a most important commercial area and that the centage value fixed in that case by the reference court was more than Rs.6.5 Lakhs per cent for an acquisition notification in the year 2004 and more than Rs.10 Lakhs per cent for the notification in the year 2008 and that the market value fixed for the land at Pettah for the acquisition in the year 2008 was Rs.25,10,394 per Are. It is contended that, in the present case, the market value fixed by the authority is only at the rate of Rs.19,79,213 per Are for the year 2019. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners are entitled to a higher market value than the one fixed by the 2[nd] respondent. It is submitted that the 2[nd] respondent ought to have considered the judgment of this Court in _**S. Babu (supra)**_ while fixing the land value. It is further submitted that if the awards passed W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 8 in earlier acquisition proceedings are at a larger market value than one fixed in the present case under section 26 (1) of the Act, then that higher value with an appropriate annual increase in percentage of land value should be adopted as the market value. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also drew attention to Explanation 3 to section 26 of the Act. It is contended that even though the said provision provides that the awards passed in earlier acquisition proceedings shall not be taken into consideration, it cannot be interpreted to mean that there is an absolute exclusion of consideration of the earlier awards. It is contended that the provision was incorporated to ensure that a lower amount to the detriment of the claimant is not fixed by the authorities. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further placed considerable reliance on the judgment of this court in _**Santhakumar and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2016 (3) KHC 757,**_ which was affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in _**State of Kerala and others v Santha V.R and others; W.A No.2020/2016.**_ It is submitted that this court, in the aforesaid judgments, has taken the view that it is obligatory on the part of the District Collector to make an enquiry, adopting different methods envisaged under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Act, to fix the market value. It is contended that the expression W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 9 _"whichever is higher"_ indicates that an enquiry is to be conducted by adopting all methods contemplated under Section 26(1) of the Act and that it is mandatory that the highest value is to be adopted. It is submitted that the market value of each criterion under clauses (a) to (c) of section 26 of the Act shall be explored, and the highest value must be taken as the market value of the acquired property. It is submitted that the authorities have failed to consider the criterion laid down in section 26(1)(c) of the Act. It is also submitted that the 2[nd] respondent ought to have adopted the criterion laid down as per the provisions contained in section 26(1)(c) of the Act, with respect to the negotiated price between the State and the claimants, in the absence of any such prevailing negotiated price fixed in any alternate proceedings. It is contended that the fact that a review petition is pending seeking a review of the judgment of the Division Bench in writ appeal, _**Santha V.R (supra)**_ , is not a good reason to discard the law laid down therein. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Reliance Industries Ltd. v Vijayan, 2022 (7) KHC 247**_ in support of this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment of this court in _**Krishna Kumar and Others v District Bar Association, Pathanamthitta and Others, 2021 KHC 35**_ to contend that it has been held that Stamp duty value is not the Market W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 10 value of the land sought to be acquired and the authority will have to conduct a fair and impartial enquiry to arrive at the just and fair Market value of the property. It is further contended that the District Collector had fixed a higher land value upon negotiation, and that shows that the land value is higher than the one fixed by the 2[nd] respondent. It is contended that the 2[nd] respondent cannot pass an award that is lesser than what is granted to the A-category property holders and approved by the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) and that the awards passed by the 2[nd] respondent are, therefore, liable to be interfered with. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, in reply, would submit that the contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 39886/2022 that an opportunity to be heard was not given is devoid of any merit. It is submitted that intimation with respect to an online meeting was provided to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to attend the same and thereafter, preferred W.P.(C) No. 27976/2021, stating that the market value fixed for the land was grossly inadequate. It is submitted that pursuant to the judgment of this court in the aforesaid writ petition, notice was issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner again failed to appear for the hearing, stating that an incompetent authority issued the notice and that the District Collector should conduct the hearing. It is W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 11 submitted that the petitioner further preferred another writ petition as W.P.(C) No. 8886/2022, and this Court directed the Special Tahsildar to act strictly in terms of the Act and that the petitioner was directed to produce all documents to substantiate his claim, in support of his claim for a higher value for his property. It is submitted that similar directions were given in WP(C) No. 29693/2021 filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No. 40362/2022. It is submitted that petitioners in both these cases were provided notices, including award enquiry notice under Section 21. It is submitted that the documents to prove title and ownership of the properties were submitted, but no documents or records other than judgments in land acquisition appeals were produced by the petitioners to claim a hike in the basic market value of the land. The learned Senior Government Pleader referred to the statement filed in this Court on behalf of the respondents and stated that the awards passed in these cases are completely justified. It is submitted that the impugned awards do not suffer from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the market value of the lands acquired was fixed as per the provisions of Section 26 of the Act. It is submitted that the contention by the petitioners relying on Explanation 3 to W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 12 Section 26 of the Act is not tenable as it is clear from a reading of this provision that while determining the market value, compensation for land acquired on an earlier occasion shall not be taken into consideration. It is submitted that the market value of the land was not fixed merely by calculating the fair value of the land but after fixing the parameters and criteria for categorising the land for acquisition so as to arrive at the correct land value by following all the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that respondents have not considered the criterion laid down under section 26 (1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. It is submitted that section 26(1) (c) of the Act pertains to the determination of the market value of land based on the amounts fixed as compensation in the case of a negotiated purchase of lands similarly situated. It is submitted that the provisions apply only in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public-private partnership projects. It is contended that when the lands were acquired for purposes other than for private companies or for public-private partnership projects, Section 26(1) (c) of the Act will not apply. It is contended that the requisitioning authority in this case is the Kerala Road Fund Board (KRFB) which is part of the State Public Works Department. It is submitted that the first requisition was issued by the Executive Engineer - PWD (Roads), and then the work was W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 13 transferred to KRFB. It is contended that the decision in _**Santhakumar(supra)**_ , which was upheld by the Division Bench in _**Santha V.R (supra),**_ do not go to the extent of holding that Section 26(1) (c) of the Act will apply to the acquisition of land for purposes other than those set out in the provision. It is further contended that the contention of the petitioners that the 2[nd] respondent cannot pass an award that is lesser than what is granted to the A-category property holders approved by SLEC is totally baseless. It is submitted that the amount approved by SLEC is the negotiated value, which includes not only the market value but also the value for structure and improvements, 100% solatium, 12% additional market value and a negotiated additional 17% increase in the value. It is submitted that, in these cases, the basic value of land was fixed based on the criteria set out in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 26, and if the petitioners are in any manner aggrieved they should avail the remedy of a reference under Section 64 of the Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contentions taken by the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. The contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No. W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 14 39886 of 2022 that a hearing was not given to the petitioner is liable to be rejected. It is evident from the facts and circumstances of this case and on analysis of Ext.P12 award in WP(C) 39886 of 2022 that the objections raised by the petitioner were considered while finalising Ext.P12 Award. The contention of the petitioners in these writ petitions that market value is to be determined as per criterion laid down in section 26(1)(c) of the Act in the present case is liable to be rejected. In _**Santhakumar(supra)**_ , this court was concerned with the question as to whether the District Collector is justified in determining the market value of the lands by only taking the criteria under clauses (a) and (b) of section 26(1) of the Act. After considering the provisions of section 26 of the Act, it was held: - _“15. On an analysis of Clauses (a) to (c) of S.26 of the Act, it could be seen that the legislative mandate is unambiguous and it is obligatory on the part of the District Collector to make an enquiry, adopting different methods envisaged under Clauses (a) to (c) of S.26 of the Act, to fix the market value at the rate whichever is found higher in the enquiry. On a close analysis of Clauses (a) to (c) of S.26 of the Act, it could be seen that, even though an option is given by inserting 'or' between each clause, by incorporating the expression "whichever is higher" at the end, an enquiry by adopting all methods and application of criteria which is found higher in such enquiry, are made mandatory. The market value of each criterion under Clauses (a) to (c) of S.26 of the Act shall be explored and higher value must be taken as market value of the acquired property._ _16. Going by Ext. P3 Award passed by the District Collector, it is seen that the District Collector has conducted an enquiry under Clauses (a) and (b) of S.26 of the Act and omitted to conduct an enquiry under Clause (c) of S.26 of the Act. At the same time, by Ext. P2, it is brought out in evidence that for the similar properties in the same Reach, the DLPC fixed the market value at a much higher level to the tune of Rs.11,36,469/- and Rs.11,45,365/- respectively. Going by the counter affidavit, the respondents have no case that those properties are not similarly situated_ W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 15 _or not within the same Reach. If that be so, the District Collector ought to have considered the market value fixed by the DLPC for the properties referred to in Ext. P2 and whichever was found higher should have been taken as the market value of the petitioners' lands also.”_ ## The Division bench, considering an appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment, in _**Santha V.R (supra)**_ held :- _“4. The learned Single Judge, on adjudication of the issue, found that there is an unambiguous legislative mandate which casts an obligation on the part of the acquisitioning authority to adopt the different criteria envisaged under clause (a) to (c) of Section 26 of the Act, in order to fix the market value at the rate of the highest among those criteria. Because of the specific provision in Section 26; “whichever is higher of the three criteria” it has to be followed. On evaluation of the factual aspects it was found that the authority has considered only those criteria stipulated under Clauses (a) and (b) alone and had omitted to conduct any enquiry under Clause (c) of Section 26(1). Hence it was found that the impugned awards are vitiated by procedural irregularities and illegalities and that they are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority to pass fresh awards._ _5. We do not find any illegality or irregularity with respect to the ” findings contained in the impugned judgment_ . The judgments of this court in _**Santhakumar(supra)**_ and _**Santha V.R**_ _**(supra)**_ are not authority for the proposition that the criterion specified in Section 26(1)(c) of the Act is applicable for fixing the amount of compensation to be awarded even if the acquisition is not for private companies or for public-private partnership projects. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of section 26 (1) (c) of the Act are applicable to the case of petitioners does not W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 16 appeal to this court. Section 26 of the Act (to the extent it is relevant)reads as follows: - _“_ _**26. Determination of market value of land by Collector** –(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:—_ _a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or_ _(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or_ _(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under subsection (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects,_ _whichever is higher:_ It is clear from a reading of Sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act that the provisions of the Act also apply to the acquisition of lands for private companies / public-private partnership projects subject to conditions set out in the proviso to that provision. Sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act (to the extent it is relevant) reads as follows: _“The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition, consent, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement shall also apply when the appropriate Government acquires land for the following purposes, namely:—_ _(a) for public private partnership projects, where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the Government, for public purpose as defined in sub-section (1);_ 17 W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case _(b) for private companies for public purpose, as defined in subsection (1):_ A combined reading of Section 26(1)(c) read with Section 2(2) of the Act indicates that the provisions of Section 26(1)(c) are applicable only in a case where land is acquired for private companies or for public-private partnership projects. In the facts of the present case, the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of widening the PWD road, and the requisitioning authority is KRFB, which is part of the Government and, therefore, the criterion contemplated under section 26(1)(c) is not applicable in assessing and determining the market value of the lands in question. The provisions of Explanations 1 to 4 of Section 26 set out the matters to be taken into consideration/matters to be excluded while fixing land value in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(1)(b). If the petitioner has any case that the said provisions have not been applied properly, it is for the petitioners to seek a reference under Section 64 of the Act. Resultantly, I hold that the petitioners in these cases were not denied any opportunity to present their case before the Special Tahsildar (LA). I also hold that the provisions of Section 26(1)(c) of the Act are not W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 18 applicable to determine the amount of compensation (market value) payable to the petitioners as their lands were not acquired for the purposes of any private company or for any public-private partnership projects. If the petitioners are in any manner aggrieved by the amount of compensation fixed on the application of other applicable criteria in the Act, it is for the petitioners to seek remedies in terms of Section 64 of the Act. It is made clear that a period from 08.12.2022 till today in WP(C) 39886 of 2022 and a period from 12.12.2022 till today in WP(C) 40362 of 2022, during which these writ petitions were pending before this court shall be excluded for the purposes of determining any period of limitation within which an application under Section 64 of the Act had to be preferred, provided the application is filed within a period of two weeks from today. It is also directed that the trees standing on the acquired property shall be cut and removed by the acquiring agency within a period of two weeks from today. Leaving it open to the petitioners to exercise their right in terms of Section 64 of the Act, as above, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/- **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** acd W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 19 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40362/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED NIL FIXING LAND VALUE CIRCULATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 09.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 09.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2021 IN W.P(C) NO.29693/2021. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 07.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 08.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 08.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2019 IN W.A 2020/2016 AND CONNECTED MATTERS. Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 2ND PETITIONER. Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 20 3RD PETITIONER. - Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.11.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.12.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. - Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.12.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. - Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.12.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. - Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF IMAGE SHOWING THE MARKING ON THE FLOOR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.01.2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED ON 13.01.2023 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE DIRECTOR W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 21 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39886/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 23.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED NIL FIXING LAND VALUE CIRCULATED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO.27976/2021 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO.6668/2022 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ONE MR.K.C SASIDHARAN Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.07.2022 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 20.08.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 20.09.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.10.2022 GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.10.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZER DATED 08.11.2022 TAKING OVER POSSESSION OF LAND Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.11.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 22 RESPONDENT Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/12/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SURVEY STONE AND THE TRESS STANDING ON THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the notice dated 06.07.2022