Writ Petition (Civil) by T. V. Mohan, Rohit Mohan, Dr. Paul Puthuran, Dr. Mani Puthuran, Anna Rosh Varghese, Dr. Rosh Varghese, Sara Paul Puthuran, and Dr. Eapen Joseph v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Village Officer, Elamkulam; Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk; State of Kerala; District Collector Directorate, Kakkanad

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 T. V. MOHAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O. LATE T. A. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT 2014, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038.** - **2 T. V. ROHIT AGED 34 YEARS S/O. T. V. MOHAN, RESIDING AT 2014, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038.** - **3 DR. PAUL PUTHURAN AGED 75 YEARS S/O. DR. GEORGE PUTHURAN, RESIDING AT PUTHURAN HOUSE, T. D. ROAD, KOCHI - 682 011.** - **4 DR. MANI PUTHURAN AGED 46 YEARS S/O. DR. PAUL PUTHURAN AND LATE EMMY PAUL PUTHURAN, RESIDING AT PUTHURAN HOUSE, T. D. ROAD, KOCHI - 682 011.** - **5 ANNA ROSH VARGHESE AGED 47 YEARS D/O. DR. PAUL PUTHURAN AND LATE EMMY PAUL PUTHURAN, W/O. DR. ROSH VARGHESE, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.9C, SKYLINE TOPAZ, KALOOR KADAVANTHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P. O., KOCHI - 682 020.** **6 DR. ROSH VARGHESE AGED 53 YEARS S/O. DR. I. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.9C, SKYLINE TOPAZ, KALOOR KADAVANTHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P. O., KOCHI - 682 020.** - **7 SARA PAUL PUTHURAN AGED 40 YEARS** - **D/O. DR. PAUL PUTHURAN AND LATE EMMY PAUL PUTHURAN, RESIDING AT VILLA 12, SKYLINE ORION, N. H. 17, OPPOSITE AL AMEEN SCHOOL, EDAPPALLY - 682 024.** **8 DR. EAPEN JOSEPH** WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 2 ## **AGED 64 YEARS S/O. P. V. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1B, ABAD ORIENTAL GARDEN, MAMANGALAM - 682 025.** **BY ADV. SRI.SHANKAR V.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI, KOCHI -2, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ELAMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI - 682 020.** - **3 THE TAHASILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 016.** - **4 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DIRECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 3 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **=======================** W.P.(C). No. 11440 of 2020 **=======================** Dated this the 30[th] day of June, 2020 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: _(i) Issue a writ of mandamus such other order, writ or direction commanding the 3[rd] respondent to forth with effect changes in the BTR in respect of the petitioners property covered by Ext.P1 to P6 sale deeds without insisting for payment of fees and amounts prescribed under the Rules in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules._ _(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus such other writ, appropriate order or direction directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to pay the cost of the proceedings._ _(iii) Issue any such other writ, appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case._ 2. Heard Sri.V.Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saiji Jacob Palatty, the senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of the properties covered by Exts.P1 to P6 title deeds. Further that the above said subject properties though continued to be described as nilam/paddy land in the Basic Tax Register(BTR) they have been WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 4 converted as garden land or purayidam much prior to 12.08.2008(date of coming into force the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008). Further that the petitioners have filed the requisit applications under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation(KLU) order 1987, as per Exts.P10 to P14 dated 17.10.2020, before the 1[st] respondent RDO seeking formal permission for change of user of the land in order to enable them to use the said property for any non-agricultural purposes. Further that the subject properties covered by Exts.P1 to P6 title deeds have been clearly shown in the Draft Data Bank as converted land prior to the 2008 Act and have been also described therein as purayidam as per Ext.P8. Since the above said applications filed by the petitioners under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order were not considered and no action was being taken thereon, the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petitions, as W.P.(C) Nos.36170, 36186, 36199, 36200 and 36211 of 2017. This Court as per Ext.P15 common judgment dated 13.11.2017 in the above said W.P.(C)s have directed the 1[st] respondent RDO to ascertain from the Local Level Monitoring Committee concerned as to whether the subject properties have been converted prior to coming in to force of the 2008 Act and that they are not otherwise liable to be included in the Data Bank as paddy land/nilam and then to take decisions on the above said applications filed by the petitioners as per Exts.P10 to P14 in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Kerala WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 5 Land Utilisation Order. A reading of Ext.P15 order, more particularly, its appendix would show that the above said Exhibits P10 to P14 applications dated 17.10.2017 produced herein have been referred to as Ext.P5 therein. Since the directions in Ext.P15 judgment were not complied with, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by initiating contempt of court proceedings as Co.C(C) Nos.507, 509, 521, 524 and 525 of 2018, whereupon the 1st respondent RDO, has passed the impugned Exts.P20 to P27 orders dated 10.04.2017, where it has been held that the reports of the inspections conducted by various authorities would clearly show that the subject properties have been converted as garden land much prior to the 2008 Act and further that there are no neighbouring paddy lands in the vicinity of the above said subject properties and that the report of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer would show that the properties have been converted prior to the 2008 Act and that on the northern boundary of the property there is a public road and that there is no paddy land or padasekharam anywhere in the immediate neighbourhood or locality of the subject properties and further that the Agricultural Officer concerned, who is ex-officio convener of the Statutory Local Level Monitoring Committee, has also reported that the subject properties have been converted prior to 12.08.2008(date of coming into force of the 2008 Act) and that the properties are not liable to be included in the land data bank as paddy WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 6 land/nilam etc. After making such conclusive factual findings, the 2nd respondent has thereafter proceeded to hold in the impugned Exts.P20 to P27 orders that permission could be granted to the petitioners for change of user of the land but that they will have to undergo the rigour of the procedure under Sec.27A (1) of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, more particularly, that they will have to pay the amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec.27A thereof and the Rules framed thereunder and some of the conditions stipulated in Ext.P20 to P27 are based on some of the restrictive conditions envisaged in Sec.27A of the 2008 Act. The petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P20 to P27 only to the limited extent, the 1[st] respondent has ordered therein that the petitioners will have to face the restrictive conditions of the 27A(1) of the 2008 Act and thereupon they have challenged those impugned restrictive conditions in the said orders as per Exts.P20 to P27 by filing W.P.(C) No.18569 of 2018 before this Court. This Court as per Ext.P28 judgment dated 1308-2019 has finally disposed of W.P.(C) No.18569/2018 and has found that the 1st respondent has taken a decision to grant permission to the petitioners for change of user of the land and that the further restrictive conditions laid down therein that the petitioners will have also to face the restrictions and rigour of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec.27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder is WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 7 clearly illegal and ultravires. This Court has so held in Ext.P28 judgment, as admittedly the above said applications in terms of Exts.P10 to P14 seeking permission under 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 has been filed by the petitioners on 17.10.2017, which is prior to 30.12.2017(the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act which has been introduced as per Sec.27A thereof) and hence, this Court held that in view of the well settled legal position, the petitioners who have filed such applications under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order before the cut of date of 30.12.2017, are entitled to get their case considered only in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the KLU order and that therefore the stand of the 2nd respondent that they should also face the rigourous procedure and the restrictive conditions flowing out from the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec.27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder is clearly illegal and ultravires. To that extent, this Court has thereupon set aside the impugned Exts.P20 to P27 proceedings to the limited extent it has been ordered therein and the petitioners should face the rigourous conditions of Sec.27A (1) and the Rules framed thereunder. A reading of Ext.P28 judgment would make it clear that the substantive decision taken by the 1st respondent in Exts.P20 to P27 to the effect that properties have been converted prior to the 2008 Act and that there are no neighbouring paddy lands in the locality etc., and that therefore the petitioners could WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 8 be given statutory permission for change of user of the land for any non agricultural purposes etc., has not been in any manner interfered with. This is also clear, as petitioners challenge Exts.P20 to P27 only to the limited extent it has imposed the above said restrictive conditions flowing out from the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Since the petitioners have already set in motion various litigative writ proceedings and contempt of court proceedings, this Court, in order to obviate any further delay has ordered in Ext.P28 dated 13.08.2019, that the 1st respondent should immediately pass consequential proceedings/orders for re-assessment of the subject properties covered by Ext.P20 to P27 herein, so as to secure additional entries in the BTR to show correctly the changed nature of the land as garden land or purayidom instead of the earlier BTR entries as paddy land/nilam etc., and it was ordered that the 1st respondent should complete such consequential proceedings, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said judgment. The complaint of the petitioner is thereafter the respondents have not passed any consequential orders in strict compliance with Ext.P28 judgment etc. 4. The 1[st] respondent RDO has filed an affidavit as per Ext.P29 stating that he does not even have the remotest intention in any manner to disobey the directions of this Court in Ext.P28 judgment and that the WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 9 competent statutory authority to pass consequential orders under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for re-assessment of the subject properties is the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar and the power in that regard is not vested in the 1st respondent RDO and that without harping on any technicalities the 1[st] respondent has immediately issued Ext.P30 proceedings dated 20.12.2019, directing the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar to immediately take steps to pass consequential orders for re-assessment of the property covered by Ext.P20 to P27 herein under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act so as to secure additional entries in the BTR regarding the changed nature of the land. etc., and that steps have been taken to ensure that the 3rd respondent immediately complies with the said directions, as ordered in Ext.P30. 5. Sri. Saigi Jocob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader, would submit on the basis of instructions of the respondents, more particularly the 1[st] respondent, that the 1st respondent never had even the remotest intention to disobey the directions of this Court in Ext.P28 judgment and that the consequential orders for re-assessment under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act should be passed by the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar who has the sole statutory competence in that regard and that the respondents would certainly ensure that the 3rd respondent Tahsildar immediately passes orders of re-assessment under Sec 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, in strict compliance with the spirit WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 10 and substance of Ext.P28 judgment and that the respondents will not raise any technical plea that the directions issued in Ext.P28 judgment was to the 1[st] respondent, who does not have competence etc., and that with all sincerity the 3[rd] respondent would ensure strict compliance of the abovesaid direction as already ordered by the 1st respondent RDO as per Ext.P30 proceedings dated 20.12.2019. 6. After hearing both sides, this Court is the cosidered view that the 1st respondent cannot be blamed for not passing orders for reassessment under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, as ordered in Ext.P28 as the statutory competence in that regard is vested with the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar. As a matter of fact it was the duty of the petitioners to have pointed out these crucial aspects to this Court or they could have at least filed appropriate applications for modifications and clarifications of the said judgment that the directions therein regarding re-assessment under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is to be complied with by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar and not by the 1st respondent RDO. Moreover, going by the procedural norms, in cases like this, the parties concerned will have to file the requisite application before the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar taking re-assessment of the subject property in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act and those procedural norms will also have to be adhered to by the petitioners. Though those aspects may be coming within the realm of clerical WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 11 matters, these norms will have to be respected by both the petitioners as well as the respondents. On being queried as to whether there is any prescribed proforma for submitting application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader, would submit on the basis of instructions of the respondents that there is a prescribed proforma for submitting applications in that regard but that in cases where directions are issued by this Court, then even applications submitted by the party concerned in white paper giving the details of the subject property and the requisite details on the basis of which they seek for re-assessment of the subject property could be accepted. 7. It is by now well settled by rulings of this Court as in _**Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019(3) KLT 838], _**Renji K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (2) KLT 262] etc, where the subject property has been converted by 2008 Act and where the requisite application under Section 6 (2) of the K.L.U Order has been filed by the property holder before 30.12.2017( date of coming into force of the amended provisions of 2008 Act including the introduction of Sec.27A thereof). None of the adverse provisions or reverse provisions contained in the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Section 27A thereof could be pressed in to service against such a property holder and such case should be considered only in terms of WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 12 the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order. 8. Further it has also been held by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in cases as in **LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma** [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] **Thahasildar, Thodupuzha Taluk v. Renjith** [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB) etc. that in such cases, where Rule 6(2) application of the K.L.U order has been filed before the cut off date and where such orders have been obtained , then the property holder is entitled to maintain an application under Section 6(A) of the Kerala Land Tax Act for reassessment of the subject property to make additional entries in the B.T.R to show the said property as garden land/purayidom before the earlier B.T.R entries as Nilam/paddy land. It has been held by the Division Bench in these judgments more particularly in **Mariumma's** case(supra) that once an order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the K.L.U order, granting permission for conversion, then the earlier B.T.R entries becomes superfluous and otiose and the respondent Revenue Officer concerned is under the obligation to subject the property for reassessment in order to make additional entries in the B.T.R to show the property as purayidom or garden land, so that higher land tax could be collected. 9. Accordingly, after hearing both sides the following directions/orders are passed; WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 13 i) It is ordered and declared that in the light of Ext.P28 judgment dated 13.08.2019 rendered by this Court in W.P. (C)No.18569/2018, the main decision in Exts.P20 to P27 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent would amount to substantive decision taken by the 1st respondent granting statutory permission to the petitioners to use the subject properties concerned in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 for any non-agricultural purposes including for construction of buildings etc. However, as already held by this Court in Ext.P28 judgment that the restrictive conditions imposed in Exts.P20 to P27 that petitioners will have to adhere to the rigorous procedure under the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec.27A thereof and the Rules framed thereunder etc., is illegal and ultravires and are unenforcible. ii) Further it is ordered that the petitioners may file either the requisite application in the prescribed proforma or applications in plain paper seeking for the benefit of re-assessment of the subject properties covered by Exts.P20 to P27 in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for securing additional entries in the BTR to show the changed nature of the land as garden land/purayidom instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam/paddy land and this the petitioners may do, within ten days from the date notified for receiving a certified copy of the judgment. While submitting those applications before the 3rd WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 14 respondent, petitioners will also produce a certified copy of the judgment before the said officer. iii) The 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar need not wait for the filing of such formal applications and will have to ensure that expeditious steps be taken to ensure the directions issued in Ext.P28 judgment and Ext.P30 proceedings are effectively complied with, without any further delay. Immediately on receipt of the above said applications, the 3rd respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and may ascertain as to whether the subject properties covered by the said applications filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act are the very same properties as those covered by Exts.P20 to P27 and if it is so found then he shall immediately pass formal orders of re-assessment of the subject properties under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act so as to secure additional entries in the BTR to show correctly the changed nature of the land as garden land/purayidom instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam/paddy land, within one month from the date of filing of such application, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners through their authorised representatives/counsel, if any, and within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment and strictly in terms of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in **Mariumma's** case (supra) [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] and _**Renjith's**_ WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 15 case (supra) [2020(1) KHC 865 (DB)] and without compelling the petitioners in any manner to pay the amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec.27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder, including Rule 12(17) there of. iv) It is made clear that it shall be the obligation of the 1st respondent RDO to ensure that the above said directions issued by this Court herein above as well as the directions in Ext.P28 judgment are to be strictly complied with as aforedirected by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar within the above said time limit. 10. After passing such orders for re-assessment under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, the 3rd respondent Tahsildar will immediately forward copies of the said proceedings to each of the petitioners concerned by registered post and thereafter the 3rd respondent Tahsildar would immediately give strict directions to the 2nd respondent Village Officer to ensure that necessary alterations in the BTR are made in respect of the subject properties, in compliance with the directions issued by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act and also thereafter to ensure that land tax are collected from the petitioners in respect of the subject properties, and the 2nd respondent will thereafter issue land tax receipt assessed to the petitioners showing the altered BTR entries, provided the properties covered by Exts.P20 to P27, are the same as the one covered by the WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 16 application filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. The consequential actions in this regard should also be duly completed by the 1st respondent RDO as well as the 2nd respondent Village Officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the proceedings to be issued by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act as aforedirected. The petitioners will produce certified copies of the judgement along with the copies of the memorandum of the W.P.(C) with all the Exhibits before respondents 1 to 3 for necessary information and for further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of. **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS** **JUDGE** DM WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 17 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1268 OF 1993 OF ERNAKULAM SRO.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.3338 OF 2012 OF ERNAKULAM SRO.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1270 OF 1993 OF ERNAKULAM SRO.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1271 OF 1993 OF ERNAKULAM SRO.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1269 OF 1993 OF ERNAKULAM SRO.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.626 OF 2001 OF THE ERNAKULAM SRO.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER - FORM F.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND IDENTIFICATION ISSUED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P9 RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FAIR VALUE OF LAND UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY.NO.470/2 OF ELAMKULAM VILLAGE PUBLISHED ON 1.4.2010.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.10.2017 OF PETITIONERS 1 AND 2.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.10.2017 OF PETITIONERS 5 AND 6.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.10.2017 OF THE 7TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.10.2017 OF THE 8TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.10.2017 OF PETITIONERS 1 TO 8.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.36170 OF 2017 AND 36186 OF 2017, 36199** WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 18 |||**OF 2017, 36200 OF 2017 AND 36211 OF 2017.**| |---|---|---| |**EXHIBIT P16**||**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PRINCIPAL**| |||**AGRICULTURAL OFFICER WHO IS ALSO THE**| |||**CONVENOR OF THE LLMC DATED 11.1.2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**||**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE**| |||**OFFICER NO.32/18 DATED 15.1.2018**| |||**SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RDO.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**||**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.K2-6862/2017**| |||**DATED 22.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| |||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**||**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN RESPECT**| |||**OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER -**| |||**NOTE 6860 /17.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN RESPECT**| |||**OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER -**| |||**NOTE 6864/17.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN RESPECT**| |||**OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER -**| |||**NOTE 6863/17.**| |**EXHIBIT P20**||**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-6862/17**| |||**DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| |||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 8.**| |**EXHIBIT P21**||**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-6860/17**| |||**DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| |||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 8.**| |**EXHIBIT P22**||**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-6864/17**| |||**DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| |||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 8.**| |**EXHIBIT P23**||**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-6864/17**| |||**DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| |||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 8.**| |**EXHIBIT P24**||**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2018**| |||**ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST**| |||**PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P25**||**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-6862/17**| |||**DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| |||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 8.**| |**EXHIBIT P26**||**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-6862/17**| |||**DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| |||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 8.**| WP(C).No.11440 OF 2020(D) 19 |**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-6862/17**| |---|---| ||**DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 8.**| |**EXHIBIT P28**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.8.2019**| ||**OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN**| ||**W.P.(C) NO.18569 OF 2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P29**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT SUBMITTED IN C.C.C.NO.2120 OF**| ||**2019 DATED 16.1.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P30**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-4090/2019**| ||**DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P31**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3-327/2020 OF**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.1.2020 OF THE**| ||**TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK ISSUED TO THE**| ||**VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM.**| **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**