W.P.(C).Nos.12228/2020, 12240/2020 & 11788/2020

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.12228 OF 2020(C)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **A.V.FRANCIS, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.AJ VARGHESE, ALUKKA HOUSE, KUTHIRAVATTAM P.O. KOTTULI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 016.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR), KOZHIKODE 673 001.** - **2 ADDL.R3. KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,** **VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.(ADDL.R3.SUO MOTU IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22-06-2020 IN WPC 12228/2020.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11788/2020(W), WP(C).12240/2020(D), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::2:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.11788 OF 2020(W)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **A.V.FRANCIS, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.A.J.VARGHESE, ALUKKA HOUSE, KUTHIRAVATTAM P.O., KOTTULI, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN673106.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR)**| |---|---| ||**KOZHIKKODE, PIN-673001.**| |**2**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**PANNIYANAKARA, KOZHIKKODE, PIN-673003.**| |**3**|**ADDL.R3. KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND**| ||**ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,**| ||**VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED**| ||**BY ITS DIRECTOR.(ADDL.R3.SUO MOTU IS IMPLEADED**| ||**AS PER ORDER DATED 22-06-2020 IN WPC**| ||**11788/2020.**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).12228/2020(C), WP(C).12240/2020(D), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::3:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.12240 OF 2020(D)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SANTO ANTONY AGED 50 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, PELLISSERY HOUSE, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-670005.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR)**| |---|---| ||**KOZHIKODE, PIN-673001.**| |**2**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**PANNIYANAKARA, KOZHIKKODE, PIN-673003.**| |**3**|**ADDL.R3.KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND**| ||**ENVIRONMENT CENTRE.**| ||**VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED**| ||**BY ITS DIRECTOR.(ADDL.R3.SUO MOTU IS IMPLEADED**| ||**AS PER ORDER DATED 22-06-2020 IN WPC**| ||**12240/2020.**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11788/2020(W), WP(C).12228/2020(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::4:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . ----------------------------W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 --------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2020. ## **J U D G M E N T** As identical issues are involved in these 3 cases and as the matter was earlier considered on the basis of a common judgment, these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. W.P.(C).No.12228/2020 is taken as the lead case for the purpose of convenience. 2. The case set up in W.P.(C).No.12228/2020 is as follows: _The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P9 order whereby his application under Section 27 A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent. Earlier the petitioner has approached this Court for a declaration that his application under Section 27 A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 has to be considered independently and separately. The petitioner's property is covered by Exhibit P1 title deed of the year 2013. The 1[st] respondent was reluctant to consider Exhibit P3 application independently and separately due to the reasons that, two other separate applications pertaining to adjacent properties and covered by different sale_ ::5:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 _deeds was also submitted by the respective owners. This Court by virtue of Exhibit P8 judgment directed the 1[st] respondent to consider Exhibit P3 application under Section 27 A Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 independently and separately. It is stated that due to the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court and obtained favourable judicial pronouncement, the 1[st] respondent has passed an absolutely illegal order evidenced by Exhibit P9 rejecting his claim under Section 27 A on a different count that his property will come within the purview of Paddy land as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is urged that the above finding is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and against the meaning and spirit of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Admittedly petitioner's property covered by Exhibit P1 sale deed is an un-notified land and it qualifies for being considered under Section 27A. The act of the 1[st] respondent is against the meaning and spirit of Section 27 A and Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, it is urged. The petitioner has approached this Court without availing the statutory remedy due to the fact that Exhibit P9 order is per se illegal and against the meaning and spirit of the statutory provisions._ ## 3. The main contentions urged by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.12228/2020 are as follows: - _(I) Whether the 1[st] respondent statutory authority is justified in rejecting Sec.27A application submitted under Kerala Conservation o Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 without_ ::6:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 _adverting as to whether it is an un-notified land or not, is legally permissible._ - _(II) When an application pertaining to an un-notified land is submitted under Sec.27A of the Kerala Conservation o Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 before the statutory authority, can it be rejected on a different ground that the land qualifies the definition of paddy land._ ## It is in the light of these aspects, that the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.12228/2020 has filed the instant Writ Petition seeking the ## following reliefs: - _“i) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P9 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary by the issuance of a writ of certiorari and direct the 1[st] respondent to allow Exhibit P3 application;_ - _(ii) to issue a declaration that the statutory authority constituted under Section 27 A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 has to take a decision on an application if the property comprised therein is an un-notified land and shall not go into any other question regarding the feasibility aspects;_ - _iii) to issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”_ The facts projected in W.P.(C).Nos.12240/2020 & 11788/2020 are almost similar. 4. According to the petitioners in these cases, the subject property involved in these cases though continuously described as nilam/paddy land in the BTR, the same have been converted as garden land/purayidam much prior to 12.8.2008 (the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and ::7:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 Wet Land Act, 2008). Further the petitioners would assert on the basis of the certificate/letter issued by the agricultural officer concerned, who is the ex-officio Convener of the statutory LLMC concerned that the subject properties have not been included in the draft data bank prepared as per the provisions of the 2008 Act as can be seen from Ext.P-2 produced in W.P.(C).Nos.12240/2020 and 11788/2020. That the petitioners have submitted requisite application before the 1[st] respondent-RDO seeking for statutory permission for change of user of the land in terms of Sec.27A(1) of the 2008 Act. The said application in relation to the case in W.P. (C).No.12228/2020 is Ext.P-3, that in W.P.(C).No.12240/2020 is Ext.P-4 and that in W.P.(C).No.11788/2020 is Ext.P-4. Earlier the complaint of the petitioners were to the effect that the 1[st] respondent-RDO is taking the adamant stand that all the 3 subject properties involved in these 3 cases are adjoining properties and that the petitioners are intending to make a construction of a single building for their common use and their attempt to file separate applications under Sec.27A(1) is to get over the liability to pay higher fee under the Rules and that the fee that is required where the extent of the land is up to 20.23 ares in ::8:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 Municipal Corporation areas would be @ 30% of the fair value of the property and that where the extent of the property is above 20.23 ares and up to 40.47 ares in Municipal Corporation limits, then the prescribed fee would be @ 40% of the fair value of the property and if the extent of the land is above 40.47 ares then prescribed fee in those cases would be @ 50%. Further that if the total extent of the properties in all the 3 cases are taken together, then it will exceed the 40.47 ares and in which a case, the prescribed fee in terms of provisions contained in Rule 27A(3) r/w Rule 12(9) would be 50% of the fair value of the property and that if the properties in each of the 3 applications taken separately then the extent of the property in each cases would be above 20.23 ares in W.P(C).No.11788/2020 and would be below 20.23 ares each in other 2 cases. That in the light of this consideration, the 1[st] respondent was taking the adamant stand that she would consider only all the 3 applications together so that the petitioners will have to pay prescribed fee @ 50% of the fair value of the entire extent of the subject properties concerned. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing 3 separate Writ Petitions as W.P.(C). Nos.31495/2019, 31505/2019 & 31519/2019. This Court as per ::9:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 Ext.P-8 common judgment dated 21.11.2019 has disposed of the said 3 cases by holding that the abovesaid stand of the 1[st] respondent-RDO is not legally tenable and the 1[st] respondent is statutorily obliged to consider each of these 3 applications separately as 3 distinct applications so that the fee is payable on that basis. Now, the 1[st] respondent-RDO has rejected the application of all the 3 petitioners by passing 3 separate orders and the impugned orders are Ext.P-9 dated 3.3.2020 in W.P.(C). No.12228/2020, Ext.P-10 in W.P.(C).No.12240/2020 and Ext.P-12 in W.P.(C).No.11788/2020. The impugned orders would make very interesting reading. Ext.P-9 order dated 3.3.2020 in W.P.(C). No.12228/2020 reads as follows: "വവിഷയയ: 2018 ലലെ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ – തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ – (കഭേദഗതവി) നെവിയമ പ്രകേകാരയ വസ്തുവവിലന്റെ തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് - അകപേക്ഷ നെവിരസവിച്ചതത് സയബനവിച്ചത് സൂചനെ: 1. ശണ്ണീ. എ.വവി.ഫകാൻസവിസത് എന്നവർ 12/07/19 നെത് സമർപവിച്ച അകപേക്ഷ. 2. പേന്നവിയങ്കര വവികല്ലേജത് ഓഫണ്ണീസറവിലന്റെ 29/10/19 ലലെ റവികപകാർടത് 3. 2018 ലലെ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ -തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ (ലഭേദഗതവി) നെവിയമയ 4. ബഹ: കകേരള ഹഹൈകകകാടതവിയുലട 21/11/19 ലലെ WP(C) 31519/19 നെമ്പർ ഉത്തരവത് കകേകാഴവികകകാടത് തകാലൂകവിൽ പേന്നവിയങ്കര വവികല്ലേജവിൽ പേന്നവിയങ്കര കദശത് **ത** റവി.സ.2306-220/1A3 ൽ ലപേടതയ ശണ്ണീ. എ.വവി.ഫകാൻസവിസത് എന്നവരുലട ഉടമസ്ഥതയവിലുള തമകായ 7.25 ആർ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതവിനെകായവി സൂചനെ (1) പ്രകേകാരയ സൂചനെ (3) പ്രകേകാരമുള നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെ ചടങ്ങളവിലലെ വകുപത് 12(1) പ്രകേകാരയ അകപേക്ഷ സമർപവിച്ചവിട്ടുണത്. പേന്നവിയങ്കര വവികല്ലേജത് ഓഫണ്ണീസർ സൂചനെ (2) പ്രകേകാരയ സമർപവിച്ച റവികപകാർടവിൽ ടവി ഭൂമവി കേരടത് ഡകാറകാ ബകാങ്കവിൽ ഉൾലപടുന്നവിലല്ലേനയ ടവി ഭൂമവിയുലട തരയ നെവിലെയ വവിഭേകാഗത്തവിൽ ലപേടുനലവനയ റവികപകാർടത് ലചയ. എന്നകാൽ അകപേക്ഷകേലന്റെ ::10:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ഉടമസ്ഥതയവിലുളതയ ഈ ഭൂമവികയകാടത് കചർന്നത് കേവിടക്കുന്നതമകായ 26.49 ആർ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതവിനെത് ഈ ഓഫണ്ണീസവിൽ മലറകാരു അകപേക്ഷ സമർപവിച്ചവിട്ടുളതകായുയ കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. കൂടകാലത കമൽ സൂചവിപവിച്ച ഭൂമവികയകാടത് കചർന കേവിടക്കുന്നതയ ശണ്ണീ.സകാകന്റെകാ ആലന്റെണവി എന്നവിവരുലട ഉടമസ്ഥതയവിലുളതമകായ 19.03 ആർ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതവിനെത് പ്രകതത്യേകേയ അകപേക്ഷ സമർപവിക് **ക** ു യുയ ലചയവിരുന. ഈ മൂന്നത് കകക ഈ അകപേക്ഷ പ്രകതത്യേകേയ പകാൻ തന്നവിരുനലവങ്കവിലുയ ഭൂമവിയവിൽ നെവിർമവികകാനുകദ്ദേശവിക്കുന്നതത് ഒരു ബവിൽഡവിയഗത് ആലണനയ അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവി ഒറ മതവിൽലകടവിനുളവിൽ ഒറ കപകാടകായവി സ്ഥവിതവി ലചയ്യുനലവനയ ഈ അകപേക്ഷകേർകത് കവണവി ഹൈകാജരകാകുന്ന പ്രതവിനെവിധവി ഈ ഓഫണ്ണീസവിൽ അറവിയവിക് **ക** ു യുണകായവി. പ സൂചനെ (3) പ്രകേകാരമുള നെവിയമ പ്രകേകാരയ കകേകാർപകറഷൻ രവിധവിയവിൽ സ്ഥവിതവി ലചയ്യുന്ന 20.23 ആർ വലര വവിസവിതവി ഉള ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതവിനെത് അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവിയുലട നെത്യേകായ വവിലെയുലട 30% വയ 20.23 ആർ നെത് മുകേളവിൽ വവിസവിതവി ഉള ഭൂമവികത് നെത്യേകായ വവിലെയുലട 40% വയ 40.47 ആർ നെത് മുകേളവിൽ വവിസവിതവിയുള ഭൂമവികത് നെത്യേകായ വവിലെയുലട 50% വയ അടകകണതണത്. എന്നകാൽ ഒറ കപകാടയവികവിടക്കുന്ന ഭൂമവിലയ മൂന്നത് അകപേക്ഷകേളകായവി സമർപവിച്ചകപകാൾ ഗവലണ്മെന്റെവിനെത് 60 ലെക്ഷയ രൂപേയത് മുകേളവിൽ ഫണ്ണീസവിനെത്തവിൽ നെഷയ സയഭേവവിക്കുലമന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. അതവിനെകാൽ ഈ മൂന്നത് അകപേക്ഷകേളയ ക്ലബത് ലചയത് ഒറ അകപേക്ഷയകായവി പേരവിഗണവിക്കുന്നതത് സയബനവിച്ചത് അകപേക്ഷകേരുലട പ്രതവിനെവിധവിലയ ഈ ഓഫണ്ണീസവിൽ നെവിന്നത് വകാകകാൽ അറവിയവിക് **ക** ു യുണകായവി. തടർന്നത് അകപേക്ഷകേൻ ബഹ: കകേരള ഹഹൈകകകാടതവിലയ സമണ്ണീപേവിക് **ക** ു യുയ കകേകാടതവി സൂചനെ (4) പ്രകേകാരയ ഉത്തരവത് പുറലപടുവവിക് **ക** ു യുയ ലചയ. അകപേക്ഷകേൾ ഒന്നവിച്ചത് പേരവിഗണവികകണനയ പ്രകതത്യേകേമകായവി പേരവിഗണവികണലമനയ ആവശത്യേമകായ പേരവികശകാധനെകേൾ നെടത്തവി അകപേക്ഷയവിൽ രണത് മകാസത്തവിനെകേയ തണ്ണീർപത് കേൽപവികണലമനയ കകേകാടതവി ഉത്തരവകായവിരുന. തടർന്നത് അകപേക്ഷകേൾ ഒന്നവിച്ചത് പേരവിഗണവികകാലത പ്രകതത്യേകേമകായവി പേരവിഗണവികകാൻ തണ്ണീരുമകാനെവിച. കനെരവിടത് സ്ഥലെ പേരവികശകാധനെ നെടത്തുകേയുണകായവി. അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവി കറകാഡവിൻ സമണ്ണീപേത്തകാലണങ്കവിലുയ അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവിയവിൽ അരവികേത് കചർന്നത് രണത് ലതങ്ങുളതല്ലേകാലത ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറലപടതത് 2008 ൽ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ നെവിയമയ നെവിലെവവിൽ വന്നതവിനു മുമ്പകാകണകാ കശഷമകാകണകാലയന്നത് വത്യേക്തമകാകുകേയുണകായവില്ലേ. അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവി നെവിരണ്ണീക്ഷച്ചതവിൽ വളലര അടുത്ത കേകാലെത്തകാണത് ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറലപടലതന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് പേകാരവിസ്ഥവിതവികേ പ്രതത്യേകാഘകാതങ്ങൾ സവിഷവിക്കുലമനയ ഇത്തരത്തവിലുള ഭൂമവി വത്യേകാപേകേമകായവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് പ്രകവിതവി ദുരന്തങ്ങൾകത് കേകാരണമകായവിത്തണ്ണീരുലമനയ കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് 2018 ലലെ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ (കഭേദഗതവി) നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെയുയ 2008 ലലെ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെയുയ അന്തസത്തകത് എതവിരകാലണന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി ## ഉതരവത ്ത ് അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ (കഭേദഗതവി) നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെ അന്തസത്തകത് എതവിരകാലണന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. അതവിനെകാൽ അകപേക്ഷകേലന്റെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയവിലുളതയ പേന്നവിയങ്കര വവികല്ലേജവിൽ ടവി കദശത് **ത** റണ്ണീ. സ.23-6-220/1A3 ൽ ലപട 7.25 ആർ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതവിനെത് സമർപവിച്ച അകപേക്ഷ നെവിരസവിച്ചത് ഇതവിനെകാൽ ഉത്തരവകാകുന. ::11:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ഈ ഉത്തരവത് സയബനവിച്ചത് ആകക്ഷപേമുള പേക്ഷയ കകേകാഴവികകകാടത് ജവില്ലേകാ കേലെക്ടർ മുമ്പകാലകേ നെവിയമകാനുസ്രുത രണ്ണീതവിയവിൽ അപണ്ണീൽ ഫയൽ ലചയകാവന്നതകാണത്. സബത് കേലെക്ടർ" Similarly worded orders are passed in other 2 cases also. The operative portions of the said 2 impugned orders showing the reasons and conclusions therein as per Ext.P-10 in W.P.(C). No.12240/2020 and Ext.P-12 in W.P.(C).No.11788/2020 read as follows: ## Ext.P-10 in W.P.(C). No.12240/2020 "തടർന്നത് അകപേക്ഷകേൾ ഒന്നവിച്ചത് പേരവിഗണവികകാലത പ്രകതത്യേകേമകായവി പേരവിഗണവികകാൻ തണ്ണീരുമകാനെവിച. കനെരവിടത് സ്ഥലെ പേരവികശകാധനെ നെടത്തുകേയുണകായവി. അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവി കറകാഡവിൻ സമണ്ണീപേത്തകാലണങ്കവിലുയ അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവിയവിൽ അരവികേത് കചർന്നത് 4 ലതങ്ങുളതല്ലേകാലത ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറലപടതത് 2008 ൽ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ നെവിയമയ നെവിലെവവിൽ വന്നതവിനു മുമ്പകാകണകാ കശഷമകാകണകാ ലയന്നത് വത്യേക്തമകാകുകേയുണകായവില്ലേ. അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവി നെവിരണ്ണീക്ഷച്ചതവിൽ വളലര അടുത്ത കേകാലെത്തകാണത് ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറലപടലതന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് പേകാരവിസ്ഥവിതവികേ പ്രതത്യേകാഘകാതങ്ങൾ സവിഷവിക്കുലമനയ ഇത്തരത്തവിലുള ഭൂമവി വത്യേകാപേകേമകായവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് പ്രകവിതവി ദുരന്തങ്ങൾകത് കേകാരണമകായവിത്തണ്ണീരുലമനയ കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് 2018 ലലെ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ (കഭേദഗതവി) നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെയുയ 2008 ലലെ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെയുയ അന്തസത്തകത് എതവിരകാലണന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. ## ഉതരവത ്ത ് അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ (കഭേദഗതവി) നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെ അന്തസത്തകത് എതവിരകാലണന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. അതവിനെകാൽ അകപേക്ഷകേലന്റെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയവിലുളതയ പേന്നവിയങ്കര വവികല്ലേജവിൽ ടവി കദശത് **ത** റണ്ണീ. സ.23-6-220/1A 3 ൽ ലപട 19.03 ആർ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതവിനെത് സമർപവിച്ച അകപേക്ഷ നെവിരസവിച്ചത് ഇതവിനെകാൽ ഉത്തരവകാകുന. ഈ ഉത്തരവത് സയബനവിച്ചത് ആകക്ഷപേമുള പേക്ഷയ കകേകാഴവികകകാടത് ജവില്ലേകാ കേലെക്ടർ മുമ്പകാലകേ നെവിയമകാനുസ്രുത രണ്ണീതവിയവിൽ അപണ്ണീൽ ഫയൽ ലചയകാവന്നതകാണത്. സബത് കേലെക്ടർ" ::12:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ## Ext.P-12 in W.P.(C).No.11788/2020 "തടർന്നത് അകപേക്ഷകേൾ ഒന്നവിച്ചത് പേരവിഗണവികകാലത പ്രകതത്യേകേമകായവി പേരവിഗണവികകാൻ തണ്ണീരുമകാനെവിച. കനെരവിടത് സ്ഥലെ പേരവികശകാധനെ നെടത്തുകേയുണകായവി. അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവിയുലട ഒരു വശത് **ത** കറകാഡത് കേടനകപേകാകുന്നതകായുയ ഭൂമവിയുലട അരവികേവിൽ ഒരു മകാവയ ലതങ്ങുയ നെവിൽക്കുന്നതകായവി കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. ഈ ഭൂമവി അടുത്ത കേകാലെത്തകായവി തരയ ഈ തരയ മകാറലപടതകായവി കേകാണലപട്ടു. ഭൂമവി മകാറവി നെൽകുന്നതത് പേകാരവിസ്ഥവിതവികേ പ്രതത്യേകാഘകാതങ്ങൾ സവിഷവിക്കു കേയയ പ്രകവിതവിയുലട സന്തുലെനെകാവസ്ഥലയ പേതവികൂലെമകായവി ബകാധവിക് **ക** ു യുയ ലചയ്യുലമന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. ഈ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് 2018 ലലെ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ (കഭേദഗതവി) നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെയുയ 2008 ലലെ കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെയുയ അന്തസത്തകത് എതവിരകാലണന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. ## ഉതരവത ്ത ് അകപേക്ഷ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതത് കകേരള ലനെൽ വയൽ തണണ്ണീർത്തട സയരക്ഷണ നെവിയമത്തവിലന്റെ അന്തസത്തകത് എതവിരകാലണന്നത് കേകാണുകേയുണകായവി. അതവിനെകാൽ അകപേക്ഷകേലന്റെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയവിലുളതയ പേന്നവിയങ്കര വവികല്ലേജവിൽ ടവി കദശത് **ത** റണ്ണീ. സ.23-6-220/1A 3 ൽ ലപട 26.49 ആർ ഭൂമവി തരയ മകാറ്റുന്നതവിനെത് സമർപവിച്ച അകപേക്ഷ നെവിരസവിച്ചത് ഇതവിനെകാൽ ഉത്തരവകാകുന. ഈ ഉത്തരവത് സയബനവിച്ചത് ആകക്ഷപേമുള പേക്ഷയ കകേകാഴവികകകാടത് ജവില്ലേകാ കേലെക്ടർ മുമ്പകാലകേ നെവിയമകാനുസ്രുത രണ്ണീതവിയവിൽ അപണ്ണീൽ ഫയൽ ലചയകാവന്നതകാണത്. സബത് കേലെക്ടർ" A reading of the abovesaid impugned orders would make it clear that the 1[st] respondent-RDO proceeds on the premise as if all the 3 applications ought to have been considered together but for the intervention made by this Court as per the abovesaid common judgment referred to as Ext.P-8 in W.P(C).No.12228/2020. It ::13:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 appears that the 1[st] respondent initially had not obeyed and complied with the directions issued by this Court in the abovesaid common judgment, which compelled the petitioners to set in motion Contempt proceedings and it is only thereafter the 1[st] respondent has passed orders in the nature of the impugned orders. A reading of the further portions of the impugned orders would make it clear that the very hesitatingly the 1[st] respondent would proceed to hold therein in view of the abovesaid common judgment rendered by this Court, she is bound to consider the 3 separate applications separately and distinctly. Thereafter all what has been stated is as quoted in respect of W.P.(C).Nos.12240/2020 & 11788/2020. The operative portion and reasonings of the impugned Ext.P-9 order in W.P.(C).No.12228/2020 are identically worded in the other 2 cases. A reading of the reasonings and conclusions in the impugned order would make it clear that the 1[st] respondent would proceed to say that she has been constrained to consider each of the 3 applications separately in view of the direction issued by this Court and that she has conducted a personal inspection of the subject properties and that the property is near to a adjoining road and that the properties have only very ::14:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 few coconut trees planted therein and that the subject properties are seem to have converted only recently. On this basis, the 1[st] respondent has proceeded to reject each of the 3 applications as per the respective impugned orders. The petitioners would assert that though the 1[st] respondent would claim in Ext.P-10 that inspection was conducted personally, such inspection was conducted behind the back of the petitioners and further that a copy of the inspection report has not been given to the petitioners. Further that there are no material basis for arriving at findings in the impugned orders that the properties have been converted only recently. That the records of LLMC and land data bank would clearly show that the subject properties have been converted much prior to coming in to force of the 2008 Act. Further that the petitioners were not even given the opportunity to follow the procedure of producing the satellite pictures of the subject properties. 5. Having heard both sides, it is seen that the impugned orders do not contain any proper reasonings at all. It appears that a reading of the impugned orders would make it clear that the 1[st] respondent was all throughout maintaining the stand that all the ::15:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 3 applications have to be considered jointly so that the maximum rate is charged. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the so called finding in Ext.P-10 as if a common building was proposed in all the 3 separate properties is also factually wrong inasmuch as separate buildings have been conceived in each of the 3 separate properties even though the properties are adjoining and even otherwise there is no basis for holding that a common building was proposed in all the 3 properties. That aspects of the matter may not have any relevance for the simple reason that the abovesaid stand of the respondentRDO has already overruled by this Court as per the abovesaid Ext.P-8 common judgment rendered on 21.11.2019. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders have been passed without any material basis. The conduct of the inspection behind the back of the petitioners and further the act in not furnishing a copy of the inspection report before the impugned orders are highly improper and improper. If the 1[st] respondent had any doubt in the matter she should have immediately directed the petitioners to produce satellite pictures of the subject area. Inspection, if any, should have been conducted only with due prior notice to the ::16:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 petitioners and copy of the inspection report should have been given to the petitioners in advance. For these reasons the abovesaid reasons the impugned orders deserve interdiction at the hands of this Court as the matters would require serious reconsideration at the hands of the 1[st] respondent and would warrant a remit. In that view of the matter the impugned orders at Exts.P-9, P-10 & P-12 in W.P.(C).Nos.12228/2020, 12240/2020 & 11788/2020 will stand set aside and quashed and the respective applications in these cases filed under Sec.27A(1) of the 2008 Act will stand remitted to the 1[st] respondent-RDO for consideration afresh. The 2[nd] respondent-Village Officer will conduct 3 separate detailed inspections in respect of the abovesaid 3 subject properties covered in these 3 writ proceedings with prior notice to the petitioners and should ascertain the ground realties in each of these 3 cases and also ascertain the records of the LLMC regarding the land data bank and may also state as to whether the subject properties have been converted prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming in to force of the 2008 Act). Reports in this regard should be duly submitted by the 2[nd] respondent within 2 weeks to the 1[st] respndent-RDO and copies of such separate inspection report ::17:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 should the furnished to the respective petitioners in advance. Immediately on receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the 1[st] respondent-RDO to ensure that satellite pictures of the subject properties are obtained from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1[st] respondent will immediately permit the petitioners to pay the requisite fee to ensure that satellite pictures are obtained from the KSREC and it shall be ensured that necessary request is send by the 1[st] respondent-RDO to the said expert agency and satellite pictures are obtained and furnished to the RDO along with expert reports and their opinion and conclusion in the matter regarding the subject properties as to whether the subject properties have been converted prior to 12.8.2008 and the report and the conclusions of the respondentKSREC should be furnished to the 1[st] respondent within 2 months. After obtaining inspection report of the 2[nd] respondent-Village Officer as well as the satellite pictures and reports of the KSREC, the 1[st] respondent will separately consider each of the 3 applications of the petitioners and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to each of the petitioners will take a ::18:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 decision in each of these 3 applications so as to pass orders therein separately without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the satellite pictures and report of the KSREC as aforedirected. In this process, this Court expects that the 1[st] respondent shall not act in the manner acted in the impugned orders and all relevant aspects of the matters should be duly taken note of and the issue as to whether the properties have been converted prior to 12.8.2008 should be decided based on the records of the LLMC as well as the report of the 2[nd] respodnentVillage Officer as well as the satellite pictures and report of the respondent-KSREC in an objective, just and fair manner. If orders are passed in a manner done in the impugned orders and the petitioners are constrained to again seek redressal of their grievances by setting in motion litigative proceedings, a serious view in the matters will have to be taken. 6. Before parting with this case, this Court would point out that this Court has been constrained to hold in the judgment rendered already today (22.6.2020) in W.P.(C).No.12189/2020 and paragraphs 6-12 read as follows: ::19:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 _“6. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as the one in the case in_ _**Vimal Vincent v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Irinjalakuda** [2020 (1) KHC 123 = 2020 (1) KLT 145] that the prescribed fee payable in terms of Sec.27A(3) read with Rule 12(9) is the notified fair value of the property in terms of Sec.28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, which should be pertaining to the subject property covered by the application for which permission is sought for under Sec.27A(1). It has also been held by this Court that the said prescribed fee should not only be the fair value of the subject property covered by Sec.27A(1) application. But should also be such fair value in existence as on the date of submission of the Sec.27A(1) application and not a subsequently revised fair value even if, it pertains to the very same subject property._ _7. The petitioner has given a tabular column in paragraph No.12 of the W.P(C) regarding the impugned assessed fees and the fees which is actually payable according to his version and the said tabular column reads as follows :_ |“Sl.no:|Item||AssessedFees|Actual Fees| |---|---|---|---|---| |a|Fair valuefor 1Are||65,000/-|11,250.00| |b|50%increase||32,500/-|5,625.00| |c|10% of a&b||9750/-|10687.5| |d|Total fair value||1,07,250/-|18,562.50| |e|10% of fair value||10,725/-|1,856.25| |F|Extentof land||19Ares|| |g|FeePayable||2,03,795/-|35,268.75| |||||| ||Difference||**Rs.1,68,526/- “**|| _8. Taking note of the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires serious re-consideration at the hands of the 3[rd] respondentRevenue Divisional Officer and would warrant a remit._ _9. Accordingly, it is ordered and declared that – Ext.P-8 order dated 19.03.2019 issued by the 3[rd] respondent-RDO to the extent it grants statutory permission under Sec.27A(1) of the 2008 Act. For change of user of the land is not in any manner disturbed and the same will stand confirmed. However, Exts.P-6 & P-8 to the extent it orders that the petitioner has to pay the prescribed fee at the rate of the notified value for the property shown therein will stand quashed and set aside and to that extent, the matters in relation to determination of the correct prescribed fee will stand remitted to the 3[rd] respondent-RDO for consideration and decision afresh._ _10. In that regard, it is ordered that the 3[rd] respondentRevenue Divisional Officer will immediately pass fresh revised orders in pursuance of Ext.P-8, so as to correctly determine and decide the prescribed fee that is payable by the petitioner, which should be the notified fair value of the subject property covered by Sec.27A(1) application and such notified fair value of the said property should be the one which is in currency as on the date of submission of Sec.27A(1) application. The abovesaid submissions of the petitioner as well as the abovesaid materials raised from Ext.P-2 as well as the details shown in the abovesaid tabular column should all be examined in detail and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorized representative/counsel, if any and such correct fee should be properly and judiciously determined_ ::20:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 _and orders should be passed in that regard by the 3[rd] respondentRevenue Divisional Officer, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment._ _11. If it is found that the petitioner has already paid in excess of the said prescribed fee, then the 3[rd] respondent-RDO will take immediate steps to ensure that the such differential amounts is duly refunded to the petitioner with all expedition, at any rate, within six weeks from the passing of such revised order. It is made clear that Ext.P-8 order to the extent it grants statutory permission to the petitioner under Sec.27A(1) is not in any manner disturbed and what is now remitted is only the correct re-determination of the prescribed fee payable by the petitioner in terms of Sec.27A(3) read with the Rules._ _12. In this regard, it has been borne by the respondents, more particularly, the 3[rd] respondent that statutory officers exercising their powers under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order and under Sec.27A(1) of the 2008 Act are concerned mainly with issues regarding grant of statutory permission for change of user of the land. No fee in that regard is prescribed as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. Whereas, in terms of Sec.27A(1), what is prescribed is only a fee and it cannot be a tax and in that regard, it has to be borne in mind by the statutory revenue officials like the 3[rd] respondent that while exercising their duties and functions in terms of Sec.27A of the Act, they cannot act as “collector of taxes” and as there is no element of tax being collected by the statutory officer and the issue is only as to whether exercise of discretion to decide as to whether or not statutory permission should be granted and if decision is so taken, then as to what exactly is a prescribed fee payable in terms of Sec.27A(3) read with Rule 12(9) of the Rules. It appears that many a time the competent Revenue Officials concerned are under the illusion that they are involved in the process of discharging duties and functions as “Collector of Taxes” and such illusion will have to be totally effaced from the minds and decision making process of the statutory officers. This Court is making these observations as many a time it is to be seen that even in cases where Rule 6(2) Kerala Land Utilization Order is filed before the cut-off date of 30.12.2017, still the revenue officials like the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, etc. are demanding amounts to be paid in terms of Sec.27A(i) and this Court has considerably held that in a case where Rule 6(2) KLU application has been filed before the cut-off date of 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act which has introduced Sec.27A thereof), then the party’s case has to be considered strictly in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) in which case the higher amounts payable in terms of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the amended Rules framed thereunder cannot be compelled to be paid by such a party. So also, many cases involving patently wrong demand for fee payable under Sec.27A(3) in respect of some other property and not the fair value of the subject property involved in Sec.27A (1) application. It appears that such illegalities are occurring mainly on account of the line of thinking of the revenue officials as if what is involved is collection of taxes, etc., which aspect is a totally irrelevant aspect in the matter.”_ ::21:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 The abovesaid observations should also be duly keep in mind by the RDO and it has to be borne in mind and realised that a statutory officer like the District Collector or RDO, who is the notified collector in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order or notified statutory officer in terms of Sec.27A(1) of the 2008 Act cannot act in a manner as if the officer concerned is engaged in the task of collecting taxes and as if the officer concerned is a ' _Collector of taxes_ ' and what is involved is only exercise of discretion to decide whether statutory discretion has been exercised for granting permission for change of user of the land for which what is involved is only collection of a fee and this process does not in any manner remotely have any connection with collection of taxes. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the respective memorandum of writ petition with all exhibits before the 1[st] respondent-RDO for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petitions (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::22:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12228/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 02.09.2013 BEARING NO,. 590 BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRARS C, MEENCHANDA.** - **EXHIBIT P2** - **TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 14.06.2019 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN EXTENT OF 7.25 ARES.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM VII BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER RULE 12 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ON 27.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHILE RECEIVING EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN OF THE BUILDING SUBMERSED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN OF 000 RUPEES DATED 24.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, KOZHIKKODE.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2019 IN WPC NO. 31519/2019.** **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2020 BERING NO. C2/2704/19.** ::23:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11788/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 27.12.2013 BEARING NO.3859 BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, MEENCHANDA.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FILED OFFICER, KOZHIKKODE.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN EXTENT OF 26.49 ARES.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM VII BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER RULE 12 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ON 15.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHILE RECEIVING EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN OF THE BUILDING WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.08.2019 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FILED OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKKODE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ::24:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN OF 1000 RUPEES**| |---|---| ||**DATED 24.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, KOZHIKKODE.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**21.11.2019 IN W.P.(c)NO.31505/2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**03.03.2020 BEARING NO.C2/2705/19.**| ::25:: W.P(C).Nos.12228, 12240 & 11788 Of 2020 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12240/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 27.12.2013 BEARING NO.3859 BEFORE THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, MEENCHANDA.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.05.2019 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN EXTENT OF 19.03 ARES.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM VII BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER RULE 12 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.222707/19 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHILE RECEIVING EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN OF THE BUILDING WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALN DATED 11.07.2019 OF 1000 RUPEES ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2019 IN W.P.(C)NO.31495/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P10** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2020 BEARING NO.C2/2706/19.**