W.P.(C) Nos.15900, 15903 & 15910 of 2020

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.15900 OF 2020(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ANCY JOHN ALIAS ANCY THOMAS W/O. JOHN VARKEY, VADAKKEKARIYIL, KOTHUVARA P. O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686607, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNY HOLDER MR. K. V. GEORGE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, VADAKKEKARIYIL, KOTHAVARA P. O., VAILOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 607.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 001.** - **2 KADATHURUTHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KADATHURUTHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 604, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 THE SECRETARY** **KADATHURUTHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADATHURUTHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 604.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).15903/2020(K), WP(C).15910/2020(K), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **2** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.15903 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.V. JOSEPH ALIAS KARIYIL VARKEY JOSEPH AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, VADAKKEKARAYIL, KOTHAVARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 607, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.K.V.GEORGE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, VADAKKEKARAYIL, KOTHAVARA.P.O., VAILOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686 607** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 001. 2 KADATHURUTHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KADATHURUTHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 604, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 THE SECRETARY KADATHURUTHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADATHURUTHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 604.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).15900/2020(J), WP(C).15910/2020(K), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.15910 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONER:** **JOPHY GEORGE AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. K. V. GEORGE, VADAKKEKARAYIL, KOTHAVARA P. O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 607, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. K. V. GEORGE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, VADAKKEKARIYIL, KOTHAVARA P. O., VALLOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 607.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR, SC, KADUTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 001. 2 KADATHURUTHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KADATHURUTHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 604, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 THE SECRETARY KADATHURUTHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADATHURUTHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 604.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).15900/2020(J), WP(C).15903/2020(K), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **4** # **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.15900, 15903 & 15910 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of August, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** As the nature of the issues raised in these cases are broadly similar, the aforecaptioned writ petitions (civil) are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. The prayers in Writ Petition (Civil) No.15900/2020 are as follows:- _“(i). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1[st] respondent to issue transit permit and sufficient transit passes to the petitioner to transport ordinary earth removed from the foundation of the building without insisting production of development permit or no objection certificate from the second respondent within a reasonable period which this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case._ _(ii). Direct the 3[rd] respondent to issue a certificate stating that petitioner has deemed development permit as envisaged under section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act._ _And_ _(iii). Such other writ, direction or order, which this honourable court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case.”_ **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **5** The prayers in Writ Petition (Civil) No.15903/2020 are as ## follows:- _“(i). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1[st] respondent to issue transit permit and sufficient transit passes to the petitioner to transport ordinary earth removed from the foundation of the building without insisting production of development permit or no objection certificate from the second respondent within a reasonable period which this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case._ _(ii). Direct the 3[rd] respondent to issue a certificate stating that petitioner has deemed development permit as envisaged under section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act._ _And_ _(iii). Such other writ, direction or order, which this honourable court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case.”_ The prayers in Writ Petition (Civil) No.15910/2020 are as ## follows:- _“(i). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1[st] respondent to issue transit permit and sufficient transit passes to the petitioner to transport ordinary earth removed from the foundation of the building without insisting production of development permit or no objection certificate from the second respondent within a reasonable period which this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case._ _(ii). Direct the 3[rd] respondent to issue a certificate stating that petitioner has deemed development permit as envisaged under section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act._ _And_ _(iii). Such other writ, direction or order, which this honourable court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case.”_ **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **6** 2. Heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these three cases, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent District Geologist in W.P. (C) No.15900/2020 & W.P. (C) No.15910/2020, Sri. K. J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent District Geologist in W.P. (C) No.15903/2020 and Sri. T. R. Harikumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] & 3[rd] respondents (Kadathuruthi Grama Panchayat) in all the three cases. 3. The case of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.15900/2020 is that he has already secured Ext.P2 building permit dated 31.10.2018 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat for constructing a residential building having a total plinth area of 285.33 Sqm., in the subject property having a total extent of 49.38 Ares etc. That since the construction activity may involve extension of work for foundation work and related works, the petitioner was advised that he should get transit pass from the 1[st] respondent District Geologist for transporting such excavated earth from the construction site, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **7** Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015, framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. In view of the requirements in Rule 14(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, the petitioner was also advised to apply to the 3[rd] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat for getting development permit. The said application for development permit has now been rejected by the 3[rd] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat as per the impugned Ext.P4 letter dated 01.07.2019, stating that after inspection it is seen that all what required is levelling of the land and that therefore consideration and issuance of development permit as per the provisions of the Panchayat Building Rules will not arise in the facts of this case. 4. In W.P.(C) No.15903 of 2020, Ext.P2 is the building permit dated 31.10.2018 issued by the 3[rd] respondent for constructing of a residential building having a total plinth area of 285.33 Sqm., in the land having an extent of 27.11 Ares. The application for development permit has been rejected as per Ext.P4 therein on the same ground. 5. In W.P.(C) No.15910 of 2020, the building permit in question is Ext.P2 dated 31.10.2018, wherein the residential building permitted to be constructed is shown having a plinth area **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **8** of 285.33 Sqm. and the extent of the land involved is 8.09 Ares. In that case, the request for application for development permit has been rejected as per Ext.P4 dated 01.07.2019 issued by the 3[rd] respondent citing the very same ground. 6. The contention of the petitioners in these cases is that they have done their part for complying with the formalities for securing development permit and that in view of the considered stand of the 3[rd] respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat as per the impugned Ext.P4 order that development permit is not really necessary in this case etc., this Court shall issue directions to the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist to ensure the consideration of the request of the petitioners in these cases for grant of transit pass in accordance with the aforementioned provisions. Now, the provisions contained in Rule 14 (2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules have been amended with prospective effect from 12.6.2020 as per statutory SRO notification No.391/20 dated 12.6.2020. Rule 14 (2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules before amendment provides as follows:- **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **9** ## _**“Rule 14. Quarrying Permit for Ordinary earth** .— (1) xxx xxx xxx_ _(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), no quarrying permit is required under these rules for extraction of ordinary earth in connection with the construction of residential buildings including flats or commercial buildings having a plinth area of 300 square meters if the owner of the land obtained a prior valid permit for construction of such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned;_ _Provided that in cases where transportation of ordinary earth is required, the owner of the land shall obtain mineral transit passes for the quantity to be transported under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 after making payment of royalty, on an application submitted in this regard. Such application shall be accompanied by (1) valid building permit for construction of building obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned, (2) land development permit obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned in cases where the levelling of the land and extraction of ordinary earth is involved and (3) possession and enjoyment certificate of the land issued by the Village Officer concerned:_ _Provided further that in cases where levelling of land and extraction of ordinary earth is involved, the building permit shall be accompanied by an approved building plan obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned which shall contain the area of land to be developed for the construction of the building and the quantity of ordinary earth to be extracted for such construction."_ However, it is to be noted that Rule 14(2) of the Rules has been amended as per the aforesaid statutory notification with prospective effect from 12.6.2020 and the operative portion of the amended Rule 14(2) of the Rules reads as follows:- **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **10** _**“14. Quarrying Permit for Ordinary earth.--** (1) xxx xxx xxx_ _(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (1), no quarrying permit is required under these rules for extraction of ordinary earth in connection with the construction and digging of foundation for the buildings not requiring environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Central Act 29 of 1986), if the owner of the land obtained a prior valid permit for construction of such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned or if the owner of the land is entitled to construct such building as per the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 (16 of 2019)."_ 7. It is common ground that the two provisos to Rule 14 (2) has not been, in any manner, amended and is still in the statute book. On the basis of the abovesaid provisos to Rule 14(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader as well as Sri.K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist in these three cases would urge that one of the primary requirements in the abovesaid proviso is that the party concerned should obtain development permit also before the request for grant of transit pass could be considered and acted upon, through the local authority, by the respondent-District **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **11** Geologist, in terms of the provisions contained in the of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015. However there is no dispute between the parties that in the instant case as the threshold limit of the plinth area of the construction is well below 300 Sqm., there is no requirement for getting quarrying permit for carrying out excavation for foundation work of the construction, both in terms of the unamended provisions of Rule 14(2) as well as the amended provisions of the Rule 14(2). This Court, in the decision in _**Nafeesa V. Chavakkad Municipality**_ [2018 (3) KLT 1] has held in paragraph No.5 there as follows:- _“5. The question that essentially arises for consideration is whether the petitioners, who have purchased small parcels of land from the vendors, who had larger parcels of land, from which a smaller portion was sold to the petitioners, are required to produce a development permit in respect of the lands purchased by them as a pre-condition for effecting the constructions proposed, through the building permit sought by them. It is relevant in this connection to notice the definition of 'development' as obtaining under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999/Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. The definition of 'development of land' in Rule 2(v) reads as under:_ _“(v) 'development of land' means any material change on the use of land other than for agricultural purpose brought about or intended to be brought about by filling up of the land and/or water bodies or changing from the existing former use of the land, layout of streets and foot paths, sub-division of land for residential plots or for other uses including layout of internal streets, conversion of wet land, and developing parks, play grounds and social amenities of the like, but does not include legal partitioning of family property among heirs.”_ **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **12** _The Malayalam definition reads as follows:-_ _“(v)_ ഭവ�കസന� എന�ൽ ക�ർഷ�ക�വശ�ങൾകല�ത� ഭമ�യ�� ജല�ശ�ങയ�� ന�കത� ഭമ�യത� ഉപയ��ഗത�ൽ തക�ണവരനയ�� തക�ണവര�ൻ ഉയ'ശ�കനയ�� ആ� മഖ� മ�റ� അതലങ�ൽ ഭമ�യത� ന�ലവ�ലള മൻ ഉപയ��ഗത�ൽ മ�റ� വരത�തക�ണ2 ത�രവകൾ, ന�പ��കൾ എന�വ കമ6കര�കക, പ�ർപ�� യ7�ടകൾകയവണ� ഭമ� വ�ഭജ�കക അതലങ�ൽ ഉൾത�രവകളത� കമ6കരണ�, ചതപ2 ന�ലങ��ൽ മ�റ� വരതൽ, ഉല�യസ�ദ��നങൾ, ക��സലങൾ യപ�ലളവയത� വ�കസനങൾ എനർതമ�കന. എന�ൽ അവക�ശ�കൾ �മ�ൽ കട�ബസFത2 ന��മ�നസ�� ഭ�ഗ� വയന�2 ഇ��ൽ ഉൾതപടന�ല.” _The definition is similar under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules also. An analysis of the said definition of 'development of land' would clearly indicate that, in the context of sub-division of land, a mere subdivision of land per se, without anything more, would not attract the definition of 'development of land' for the purposes of the Rules. The definition is unambiguous, when it states that the sub-division of land for residential plots or for other uses including layout of internal streets, must be such as brings about or is intended to bring about any material change on the use of the land. The reference to 'land' here must necessarily be to the land in the hands of the person who resorts to the sub-division of the land. In my view, the sub-division of land, so as to amount to a development of land, must be in the hands of the owner of the larger parcel of land, and the land so sub-divided, together with the layout of internal streets, must result in the development of the entire parcel of land. The position is the same even in the case of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, save that in the said Rules, a layout of internal streets is not contemplated. In any event, inasmuch as in the instant cases, it is not established that the vendors of the property had resorted to a sub-division of the entire plot owned by them with a view to developing the said plot in their hands, prior to a sale of a small portion of that property to the petitioners herein, I am of the view that a sale simpliciter, of a smaller portion of property, from out of a larger extent of property owned by the vendor, will not attract the definition of 'development of land' for the purposes of the Rules, thereby necessitating the obtaining of a development permit. I note in this connection that by the judgment dated 10.4.2013 of this Court in W.P. (C). No. 20204/2012 and connected cases, a similar view, albeit_ **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **13** _without specific reference to the provisions, has been taken by another learned Single Judge while deciding an issue as to whether or not a development permit was required when garden lands were sub-divided by the vendor into small plots for sale to different individuals. I am of the view that unless in the hands of the purchaser of the smaller portion of land, an activity which attracts the definition of 'development of land', as noticed above, is involved, there would be no requirement for a person purchasing a plot of land for putting up a construction therein, to obtain a development permit prior to applying for a building permit for the said construction. I therefore allow these writ petitions, by quashing the orders impugned, and directing the respondent Municipality/Panchayat to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners without insisting on a development permit. The Municipality/Panchayat shall consider and pass orders on the application for building permit, on merits, and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners.”_ 8. Sri. T. R. Hari kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Kadathuruthi Grama Panchayat appearing for the 2[nd] & 3[rd] respondents in these cases would submit on the basis of instructions that the 3[rd] respondent Secretary had ensured the conduct of site inspection of the subject properties involved in these three cases for consideration of the application for grant of development permit referred to in Ext.P3 in these cases and it was found that all what required is only levelling work and therefore it cannot be held that there is any process of development of the land as envisaged as per the Rules contained in the Kerala **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **14** Panchayat Building Rules and that therefore the consideration of the issuance of development permit is not relevant or germane in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that regard learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat would also invite this Court's attention to the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in _**Nafeeza v. Chavakkad Municipality**_ [2018 (3) KLT 1], as well as the dictum laid down by the division Bench of this Court in the case in _**Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayat v. Nixon**_ [2020 (4) KLT 627] etc. 9. After hearing both sides and in the light of the abovesaid stand of the respondent Grama Panchayat and as the petitioners in these cases have not challenged Ext.P-4 orders of the respondent Grama Panchayat holding that the issuance of development permit is unnecessary in this case for the reasons stated therein, this Court is of the considered view that non issuance of development permit by the respondent Panchayat may not legally stand in the way of the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist from considering the plea for grant of transit pass but after meticulous and effective examination of all relevant aspects in the matter based on an effective site inspection. **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **15** 10. The intention of the provisos to Rule 14(2) in insisting the development permit is that some objective materials should be available before the District Geologist to ascertain about the reasonable or maximum quantity of earth that may have to be excavated for effectuating the construction of the building in question covered by the building permit. If development permit is issued, it would be quite easy for the respondent-District Geologist to assess those factual aspects. Since the specific stand of the respondent Grama Panchayat as stated in the impugned Ext.P-4 is that after site inspection it is seen that no substantial alteration of the land is required and all what required for effectuating the construction covered by the abovesaid three building permits is only levelling works, then the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist will have to ascertain on a reasonable basis as to the quantity of earth that may have to be excavated from the above said three subject properties covered by these three building permits for such levelling works and also the excavation that may be required for the laying of the foundation work of the three buildings. 11. In order to ensure that the inspection of the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist for the said purpose be effective and in order to assist the 1[st] respondent to get an effective full picture **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **16** about the abovesaid factual aspects, it is ordered that the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department of the area concerned in which the abovesaid respondent Grama Panchayat is situated shall also give due aid and assistance to the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist in the above said process of inspection. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed:- - (i) The 1[st] respondent-District Geologist will immediately take up for consideration the matters raised in Ext.P-5 representation submitted by the petitioners in these cases and shall conduct a site inspection in respect of the subject properties covered in these building permits and the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department of the area concerned should give necessary aid and assistance to the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist in that regard and such inspection should be duly conducted with due prior notice to the petitioners in these cases as well as to the 3[rd] respondent-Secretary of the Grama panchayat and the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist and the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department shall ascertain as to the total quantities of earth that may have to be excavated for carrying out the construction activities pertaining to the abovesaid three building permits, keeping in mind the facts that all what required is only the levelling work and also that excavation may be required for laying the foundation works, etc. The 1[st] respondent-District Geologist, **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **17** with the aid and assistance of the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department, concerned will determine such total quantities of earth to be excavated in each of these three cases. Copy of such inspection report should be given to the petitioners in these cases in advance and thereafter, the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in these cases, and shall take a considered decision in the matter regarding the total quantities of earth to be excavated both for the levelling works as well as for the foundation works and then shall ensure that the request for transit pass that may be made by the petitioners in these cases for transportation of such excavated earth is considered and decided strictly in terms of the said quantities of earth to be excavated as assessed in the abovesaid inspection process and also take into consideration of relevant parameters arising out of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, except the insistence for development permit. - (ii) The inspection and decision on the abovesaid aspects should be duly finalised by the 1[st] respondent-District Geologist, as aforedirected, without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this judgment as well as copies of the memorandum of this writ petition (civil) **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **18** along with all the exhibits before all the respondents, for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Skk//0409 **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **19** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15900/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 01.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTUCHIRA.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 31.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.01.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OF PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 20.07.2020.** **EXHIBIT P6** - **TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 22.07.2020 REGARDING THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **20** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15903/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 01.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTUCHIRA.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 31.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.01.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OF PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 20.07.2020.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 22.07.2020 REGARDING THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **WP(C).Nos.15900,15903 & 15910 OF 2020** **21** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15910/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 01.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTUCHIRA.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 31.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.01.2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OF PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 20.07.2020.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 22.07.2020 REGARDING THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**