High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions allowed; refunds of erroneously ...
W.P.(C) Nos.9599/2022, 12358/2022, 23354/2022 and 27663/2022, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) Nos.9599/2022, 12358/2022, 23354/2022, 27663/2022
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- N. Nagareesh
- Judgment Date
- 2022-11-02
- Court Decision / Holding
- (i) Exts.P3, P6, P10 in WP( C) No.9599/2022 and Exts.P3, P7 in WP( C) No.12358/2022 set aside. (ii) Competent authorities to refund the fees collected from the petitioners within two months. (iii) The 5th respondent (Tahsildar LR) in the two petitions is directed to classify the petitioners’ land (garden/dry/purayidam) in the Basic Tax Register appropriately.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions allowed; refunds of erroneously collected fees ordered; land classification in Basic Tax Register to be updated; Exts. set aside as noted; common judgment for all connected petitions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- V.G. Jose
- Licy Jose
- Anup Mathew
- Prabhakaran V.
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- Land Revenue Commissioner
- District Collector, Pathanamthitta
- Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Adoor
- Tahsildar (LR), Adoor
- Village Officer, Adoor
- Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Adoor
- Revenue Department
- Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Kudappankunnu
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Jacob P. Alex
- • Joseph P. Alex
- • Manu Sankar P.
- • Amal Amir Ali
- • G. Sudheer
- • K. M. Muhammed Hussain
Counsels for Respondents
- • Vidya KuriaKose
- • Deepa Narayanan
Case Synopsis & Summary
The cluster of writ petitions concern refunds of fees collected under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 for changing the nature of land (Nilam) to other uses, where the petitioners held land less than 25 cents. The petitions argued that (i) after the 01.04.2020 amendment to Section 2(viA), fee calculation must be based on the “fair value” of the specific land as fixed under the Stamp Act, and that pre‑amendment applications should be exempt from the revised formula; (ii) there should be exemption from payment of fees for lands up to 25 cents in line with circulars and prior decisions; and (iii) the land description in revenue records should not be altered contrary to rules. The Government Pleader resisted, asserting that after orders granting change of land use, prescribed fees are payable and that the classifications and rules apply. The Court, relying on earlier rulings like Baby v. District Collector and W.P.(C) No. 5449/2019, held that (a) there cannot be further classification based on the date of submission; (b) lands up to 25 cents are exempt from fee, and (c) refunds of erroneously collected fees are required. The court directed refund within two months and ordered proper classification of land in the Basic Tax Register. All petitions were disposed by a common judgment (2 Nov 2022).
Provisions of Law Cited
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 2(viA)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27AStamp Act - Section 28AKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 - Rule 12(9)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 - Schedule I to Rule 12(9) (as amended)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the amendment to Section 2(viA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (effective 01.04.2020) altered the basis for computing the fee for changing land use. They argued that (i) pre‑amendment Form‑6 applications should be governed by the earlier fair‑value standard, (ii) lands up to 25 cents should be exempt from fee, and (iii) there should be no description in revenue records that contradicts the statutory framework. They relied on Baby v. District Collector (unconstitutionality of the circular) and the decision in W.P.(C) No.5449/2019 to support refunds and exemptions.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that fee is payable after orders granting change of land use and that amendments and circulars operate prospectively with effect from prescribed dates. They maintained that classification and valuation rules require computation based on the defined fair value at the relevant time and that exemptions could be claimed only under the statutory provisions and applicable circulars. They urged that refunds should conform to the Court’s permissions and that revenue records may be updated to reflect the land’s nature as per the orders and the Rules.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vimal Vincent v. RDO, Irinjalakkuda | 2020 (1) KLT 145 | Mentioned Only | Cited to indicate the debate on fair‑value based fee calculation but not adopted as the controlling principle in the present case. |
| Baby v. District Collector | 2021 (6) KLT 316 | Positive | Division Bench held the Circular invalid; the present Court relies on this to reject discriminatory classifications based on submission date and to grant exemptions. |
| W.P.(C) No. 5449/2019 | 5449/2019 | Positive | Court‑made precedent that there cannot be a further reclassification based on date of application; supports refunds and exemption rationale. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P.(C) Nos.9599/2022, 12358/2022, 23354/2022 and 27663/2022, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/11TH KARTHIKA, 1944**
**WP(C) NO. 9599 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONER:**
**V.G.JOSE AGED 68 YEARS S/O.M.V GEORGE, MURUPPEL, KANNAMKODU, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523**
**BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001**
- **2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033**
- **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689 645**
- **4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR, PIN-691 523**
- **5 TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-691 523**
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 2 :
- **6 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-691 523**
- **7 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PIN-691 523**
**BY SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23354/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 3 :
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 12358 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**V.G.JOSE**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 68 YEARS**|
||**S/O.M.V.GEORGE MURUPPEL,**|
||**KANNAMKODU, ADOOR P.O.,**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 523.**|
|**2**|**LICY JOSE**|
||**AGED 65 YEARS**|
||**W/O.V.G.JOSE, MURUPPEL,**|
||**KANNAMKODU, ADOOR P.O.,**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 523.**|
**BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**|
|---|---|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**|
||**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.**|
|**2**|**LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER**|
||**PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.**|
|**3**|**DISTRICT COLLECTOR**|
||**CIVIL STATION,**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.**|
W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 4 :
- **4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR, PIN - 691 523.**
- **5 TAHSILDAR (LR) TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 523.**
- **6 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 523.**
- **7 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, ADOOR, PIN - 691 523.**
**BY SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23354/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 5 :
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 23354 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONER:**
**ANUP MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. C.A. MATHEW, TC. 27/111, AMBA NAGAR, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035.**
**BY ADV G.SUDHEER**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**
- **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.**
- **3 TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, KUDAPPANKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.**
**BY SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).9599/2022, 12358/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases
: 6 :
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 27663 OF 2022**
## **PETITIONER:**
**PRABHAKARAN V. AGED 72 YEARS S/O. RAMAN NAIR, SUPRIYA, 54/410, PUTHURKKARA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003.**
## **BY ADV K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.**
- **2 THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001**
- **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.**
- **4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.**
- **5 THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003**
- **6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.**
**BY SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23354/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 7 :
## **N. NAGARESH, J.**
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) Nos.9599, 12358, 23354 and 27663 of 2022
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
_Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2022_
## **J U D G M E N T**
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
All these writ petitions relate to payment and refund of fees under Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The question arising in all these writ petitions is common and hence these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioners are title holders in possession of lands which were described as 'Nilam' in the respective Basic Tax Registers. The extent of property held by each of the petitioners is less than 25 Cents. The petitioners wanted to change the nature of their respective land in Revenue records. They submitted applications in Form-6 invoking the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 8 :
Wetland Rules, 2008. Their applications were allowed and the petitioners were directed to remit substantial amounts as fee for changing the nature of land in Revenue records. The petitioners, under compulsion, paid the fees demanded. The petitioners are now before this Court seeking refund of the fee erroneously levied.
3. The counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.9599 and 12358 of 2022 would argue that the amendment to Section 2(viA) defining “fair value” of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was made with effect from 01.04.2020. Since the petitioners in these two writ petitions submitted Form-6 applications prior to 01.04.2020, fee should be computed based on the definition of the term “fair value” as it stood prior to the amendment. The respondents have computed the fee taking into consideration the fair value of the adjacent lands, which is impermissible.
4. The counsel for the petitioners further urged that this Court has held in _**Vimal Vincent v. RDO, Irinjalakkuda**_
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 9 :
_[2020 (1) KLT 145]_ that the fee for conversion under Section 27A of the Act, 2008 can be quantified only on the basis of fair value of the specific property involved, as fixed and notified under Section 28A of the Stamp Act and in no other manner. The petitioners have a further case that since the property involved is less than 25 Cents, they are entitled to exemption from payment of fees.
5. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.9599 and 12358 of 2022 have a further grievance that on passing orders on their Form-6 applications, the respondents have directed to describe the land of the petitioners as 'സ�ഭ�വ വ�ത�യ�ന� നടത�യ പ�രയ�ട�', in Revenue records. The petitioners would contend that such a description of their land would go against the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
6. The Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petitions. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners have submitted applications for changing the nature of their
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 10 :
respective lands in Revenue records. The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 mandate that prescribed fee should be paid once orders are passed permitting to change the nature of the land in Revenue records. After obtaining orders in their favour, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they are not liable to pay fee. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.23354 and 27663 of 2022 filed Form-6 applications subsequent to 01.04.2020. Therefore, there is no error in fixing the fee of the petitioners based on the fair value of adjacent lands.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
8. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.9599 and 12358 of 2022 are persons from whom fee has been collected based on fair value of the adjacent lands. As the petitioners had submitted their applications prior to 01.04.2020 on which date Section 2(viA) was amended, the applications of the petitioners were liable
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 11 :
to be considered without adverting to fair value of the adjacent lands.
9. As regards exemption from payment of fee, Schedule I to Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 was amended with effect from 25.02.2021 and exemption from payment of fees was granted to lands having area upto 25 Cents. On 25.07.2021, the Government had issued a Circular whereby a cut off date was fixed for applications seeking change in the nature of the land. The Circular was challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in _**Baby v. District Collector** [2021 (6) KLT 316]_ held that the Circular was unconstitutional.
10. This Court held that when the State Government intended to classify and exclude farmers holding up to 25 Cents of unnotified paddy land from payment of fee / charge for utilisation of the same for other purposes, there cannot be a further classification based on the date of submission of the application.
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 12 :
11. This Court has again considered the issue in W.P. (C) No.5449/2019 and connected cases and held that when the State Government intended to classify and exclude farmers holding up to 25 Cents of unnotified paddy land from payment of fee/charge for utilisation for changing the nature of the land for other purposes, there cannot be a further reclassification based on date of submission of application. This Court ordered refund of fee.
12. In view of the law laid down by this Court as discussed above, the petitioners whose applications under the Act, 2008 are in respect of lands less than 25 Cents, are entitled to exemption from payment of fee. Consequently, they are entitled to refund of fee erroneously paid.
13. The petitioners have a further grievance that even after obtaining orders on Form-6 applications, the Revenue authorities have effected changes in Revenue records describing their property as 'സ�ഭ�വ വ�ത�യ�ന� നടത�യ പ�രയ�ട�'. Neither the Act, 2008 or the Rules made thereunder justifies such a classification. If the land as on
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 13 :
date is in the nature of " പ�രയ�ട� ”, the respondents are bound to describe the land as such, in Revenue records.
14. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following orders/directions:
(i) Exts.P3, P6 and P10 in W.P.(C) No.9599 of 2022 and Exts.P3 and P7 in W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022 are set aside.
(ii) Competent among the respondents are directed to refund the fees levied from the petitioners, within a period of two months.
(iii) The 5[th] respondent in W.P.(C) Nos.9599 of 2022 and 12358 of 2022 is directed to classify the land of the petitioners as garden land / dry land / purayidam, as the case may be, appropriately in the Basic Tax Register.
Sd/-
**N. NAGARESH, JUDGE**
aks/14.11.2022
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 14 :
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9599/2022**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**
|**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT**|
|---|---|
||**NO.KL03010108403/2021 DATED 03.11.21**|
||**WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY ISSUED**|
||**FROM ADOOR VILLAGE OFFICE**|
|**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED**|
||**04.03.2020 FOR FORM 6 APPLICATION**|
||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH**|
||**RESPONDENT**|
|**Exhibit P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**|
||**11.08.2020**<br>**BEARING**<br>**FILE**|
||**NO.1904/2020/B6 ISSUED BY THE 4TH**|
||**RESPONDENT**|
|**Exhibit P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING**|
||**NO.GO(P) NO.47/2020/TAXES, FIXING THE**|
||**FAIR VALUE FOR PROPERTY IN SURVEY**|
||**NO.358/3 IN ADOOR VILLAGE**|
|**Exhibit P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED**|
||**22.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**|
||**BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT**|
|**Exhibit P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**|
||**29.01.2021 ISSUED CONSEQUENT TO**|
||**EXHIBIT P5 APPEAL**|
|**Exhibit P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED**|
||**18.02.2021**|
|**Exhibit P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**|
||**29.03.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND**|
||**RESPONDENT**|
|**Exhibit P9**|**TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED**|
||**12.05.2021 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE**|
||**LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER**|
|**Exhibit P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**|
||**20.04;2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH**|
||**RESPONDENT**|
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 15 :
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12358/2022**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**
|**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY **|**OF LAND TAX RECEIPT**|
|---|---|---|
||**NO.KL03010108548/2021 DATED 10/11/21**||
||**WITH RESPECT**|**TO THE PROPERTY ISSUED**|
||**FROM ADOOR VILLAGE OFFICE.**||
|**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY **|**OF THE RECEIPT DATED**|
||**04/03/2020 FOR 'FORM 6' APPLICATION**||
||**SUBMITTED BY**|**THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE**|
||**4TH RESPONDENT.**||
|**Exhibit P3**|**TRUE COPY **|**OF THE LETTER DATED**|
||**11/08/2020**|**BEARING**<br>**FILE**|
||**NO.1905/2020/B6 ISSUED BY THE 4TH**||
||**RESPONDENT.**||
|**Exhibit P4**|**TRUE COPY OF**|**THE REPRESENTATION DATED**|
||**29/03/2021 **|**SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND**|
||**RESPONDENT.**||
|**Exhibit P5**|**TRUE COPY **|**OF COMMUNICATION DATED**|
||**03/06/2021 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE**||
||**LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.**||
|**Exhibit P6**|**TRUE COPY **|**OF THE CHALLEN DATED**|
||**22/02/2021**|**FOR**<br>**AN**<br>**AMOUNT**<br>**OF**|
||**RS.59,173/-.**||
|**Exhibit P6A**|**TRUE COPY **|**OF THE CHALLAN DATED**|
||**22/02/2021**|**FOR**<br>**AN**<br>**AMOUNT**<br>**OF**|
||**RS.3,30,000/-**||
|**Exhibit P7**|**COPY OF THE**|**ORDER DATED 07/06/2021**|
||**ISSUED BY THE**|**4TH RESPONDENT.**|
|**Exhibit P8**|**TRUE COPY OF**|**THE REPRESENTATION DATED**|
||**13/01/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST**||
||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**||
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 16 :
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23354/2022**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**
|**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTICE RDO/TVM/3888/2021-**|
|---|---|
||**1 DATED 15.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND**|
||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**|
|**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN RECEIPT**|
||**NO.KL01356084220**<br>**2122M**<br>**DATED**|
||**13.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE SUB TREASURY,**|
||**KUDAPPANAKUNNU**|
|**Exhibit P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE PROCEEDINGS**|
||**NO. 3888/2021 DATED 11.11.2021 ISSUED**|
||**BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**|
|**Exhibit P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED**|
||**BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST**|
||**RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2021 WITH**|
||**ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD**|
|**Exhibit P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED**|
||**BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND**|
||**RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2021 WITH**|
||**ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD**|
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 17 :
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27663/2022**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**
|**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 2092/86**|
|---|---|
||**OF SRO AYYANTHOLE**|
|**Exhibit P2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT**|
||**DATED 23-7-1986 ISSUED BY AYYANTHOLE**|
||**PANCHAYATH**|
|**Exhibit P3**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT**|
||**DATED 29-7-1997 ISSUED BY AYYANTHOLE**|
||**PANCHAYATH**|
|**Exhibit P4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY**|
||**THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THRISSUR**|
||**CORPORATION DATED 4-1-2020**|
|**Exhibit P5**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23-**|
||**7-2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT**|
||**ENGINEER THRISSUR CORPORATION**|
|**Exhibit P6**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-8-**|
||**2020 IN I.A.635/2020 IN APPEAL NO.**|
||**339/2020**|
|**Exhibit P7**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6**|
||**APPLICATION**<br>**SUBMITTED**<br>**BY**<br>**THE**|
||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 13-08-2020**|
|**Exhibit P8**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY**|
||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24-6- 2021**|
|**Exhibit P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.**|
||**339/2020 ON THE FILE OF TRIBUNAL FOR**|
||**LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION**|
||**DATED 6-8-2021**|
|**Exhibit P10**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2-9-**|
||**2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**|
|**Exhibit P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 20-9-**|
||**2021**|
|**Exhibit P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE**|
||**4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21-10-2021**|
|**Exhibit P13**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO 1166/2021**|
||**(REVENUE) DATED 25.02.2021**|
|**Exhibit P14**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO**|
||**P1/117/2021 (REVENUE) DATED 23.07.2021**|
## W.P.(C) No.9599/2022 & connected cases : 18 :
|**Exhibit P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 313/2021**|
|---|---|
||**(REVENUE) DATED 10-12- 2021**|
|**Exhibit P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED**|
||**BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14-12-**|
||**2021**|
|**Exhibit P17**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION**|
||**ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF MINISTER DATED**|
||**12-2-2022**|
|**Exhibit P18**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION**|
||**ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19-**|
||**3-2022**|
|**Exhibit P19**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**|
||**BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 10-4-**|
||**2022**|
|**Exhibit P20**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION**|
||**OBTAINED FROM THE CHIEF MINISTER'S**|
||**OFFICE DATED 20-4-2022**|
|**Exhibit P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER BEFORE THE**|
||**2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-6- 2022**|