This Regular Second Appeal arises out of a partition suit between the children of late Mundan Ayyappan. The 7th defendant, Kunjumon, challenges a decree in which issues of partition were decided, and a Will purportedly executed by Mundan Ayyappan was put to challenge. The plaint schedule property had been acquired in 1960; a patta in 1994 showed the father as owner and the 7th defendant as a co-owner. The trial court and the First Appellate Court held that the Will presented by the 7th defendant was not properly proved and that the propounder had not satisfactorily explained suspicious circumstances surrounding Execution. The defenses of other siblings claimed they held shares and that the plaintiff’s share should reflect those admissions. The High Court, presided by Justice T. R. Ravi, upheld the concurrent findings, rejecting the Will as genuine and confirming that the plaint schedule property remained undivided, with shares distributed as per the courts’ directions. While other defendants had previously accepted or surrendered shares to the plaintiff, the Court found no basis to grant more than prayed for, noting contradictions in the 7th defendant’s case (born after the alleged purchase, yet claiming earlier ownership). The appeal is dismissed, and the decree stands. The judgment cites authorities on the burden of Will proof and suspicious circumstances and affirms the lower courts’ reasoning.
Abey George v. Elizabeth Abey, R.P.(FC) No.125 of 2020, before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, concerns a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC challenging a Family Court order in Pathanamthitta awarding maintenance to the wife. The respondent-wife had approached the Family Court seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000 on the grounds that she and two children have no secure means of subsistence, while the revision petitioner claimed to be employed abroad with substantial earnings. The Family Court, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence, fixed maintenance at Rs 20,000 per month from the date of application, noting the petitioner’s evidence did not fully disclose assets or income. The petitioner admitted the marriage but denied that the respondent had any independent income; he claimed to have lost employment and later stated an income of around Rs 1.25 lakh per month, refusing to produce his passport to pursue overseas work. The court highlighted the need for disclosure affidavits in line with Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr, which were not filed as directed, though both sides maintained their earlier stands. The High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition as meritless, while permitting arrears to be paid in three equal installments starting 19 January 2024 and deferring coercive measures.
CRL.M.C 2555 of 2022 & connected cases This is a Kerala High Court, Single Judge decision by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, rendered on 12 September 2023, disposing of CRL.M.C. No. 2555 of 2022 and several connected petitions challenging Annexure-A1 complaints lodged under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam. The petitions, filed under Section 482 CrPC, contend that cognizance and process were improperly issued in relation to a transaction framework (TReDS) arranged through Mynd Solutions’ M1xchange platform, involving the South Indian Bank as the complainant. The core issues concern the validity of a demand under Section 27(1)(c) of the PSS Act, 2007, based on information about dishonor of electronic funds transfers received via an intermediary platform rather than directly from the bank; jurisdictional clauses in Annexure-A3; and whether vicarious liability of directors under Section 141 NI Act can be invoked at the pre-trial stage. The court examines RBI guidelines, TReDS settlement mechanics (NACH/ECS), and the information-flow from M1xchange to NPCI/UBI, ultimately upholding that the information suffices for notice and cognizance. The petitions are dismissed, with the court reiterating that the platform-driven process flows and statutory scheme justify the proceedings, while emphasizing that disputes over attachment or jurisdiction are to be addressed at trial. The judgment relies on various RBI guidelines and constitutional precedents to affirm the cognizance and permit the case to proceed.
This is a motor accident claims appeal filed by The New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenging the MACT award in OP(MV) No.81/2016 (Thodupuzha). The claimant, a pillion rider on a motorcycle KL-69-3884, suffered injuries when the vehicle collided with a Maruti WagonR near a petrol pump on the Kattappana–Kuttikkanam road. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,00,500 to the claimant with 9% interest. The insurer argues that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.20,000 without reliable evidence and added 15% as future prospects to Rs.30,000, which is unsupported by the materials; Exts. A8–A13 are not conclusively proven, and helmet use (mandatory for passengers on two-wheelers) is disputed. The insurer also relies on Ramachandrappa to justify income assessment in the absence of documentary proof and on Sidram and a Karnataka High Court decision to justify future prospects in injury cases; however the High Court distinguishes these authorities on the facts. After reviewing the evidence, the Court found no adequate documentary income proof and held the injuries were not grave enough to warrant 15% future prospects. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part: monthly income is re-fixed at Rs.15,000; a 17-year multiplier is used; disability compensation is fixed at Rs.4,59,000 with 8% interest from petition date; other heads are confirmed.
OP(C) 554/2023, heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, challenges Ext.P8 in I.A.No.7/2023 in O.S.13/2020 before the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg. The original suit, filed by the petitioner through his wife and power of attorney holder Bindu Thressiamma Varghese, seeks possession of shop rooms along with damages and rent arrears. The respondents filed written statements. During trial, the plaintiff himself testified as PW1 but denied vouchers for rent allegedly issued for July–September 2018. In response, the respondents moved I.A.7/2023 (Ext.P5) to summon the plaintiff’s agent and confront her with those vouchers; Ext.P5 was allowed by the trial court, which led the petitioner to file Ext.P7 counter. The petitioner argued that there is no legal provision permitting cross-examination of the opposite party and relied on Jortin Antony v. Marthanda Varma (2000) (2) KLT 680) and Managing Director, Kerala Books Publication Society v. Labour Court (2014) (2) KLJ 221). The lower court cited Order 8 Rule 1A(4) and held that summoning the 3rd witness (the plaintiff’s agent) was necessary to confront documents already challenged by PW1. The High Court, invoking Article 227, upheld the lower court’s approach but ultimately dismissed the petition, affirming that substantial justice overrides technicalities and that the petitioner’s challenge to Ext.P8 cannot be sustained. The decision underscores the court’s discretion to summon witnesses in the interest of truth and fairness while balancing procedural limits.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 570 OF 2003 This is a criminal revision petition filed by P.C. Cherian against a conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case arises from a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 allegedly advanced on 25.03.1994 and a cheque dated 27.03.1995 issued in discharge, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment; the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The petitioner contends that critical contradictions in the complainant’s testimony undermine the core claim: the cross-examination shows the complainant admitted paying Rs.25,000 on 20.06.1994 and Rs.1,25,000 on 27.03.1995, contradicting the pleaded chronology that Rs.1,50,000 was lent in a single instance and that the cheque was issued later. The defence contends that the cheque collection was obtained by deceit and that Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 lays down the principles for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. The court notes that the accused is a person with 40% disability and that the earlier respondents did not enter appearance; nonappearance can support the argument of lack of interest. On analysis, the court holds the material contradictions create a probable defence; the presumption is rebutted, and the revision petition is allowed, resulting in acquittal.
This motor accident claims appeal arises from an award under OP(MV) 1257/2012 before the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, regarding the death of a 22-year-old housewife in a 2012 accident. The appellants (husband, minor son represented by father, and parents) contend the Tribunal wrongly calculated compensation and that the insurer should bear greater liability. The Tribunal held negligence by the stage carriage driver and the insurer, awarding Rs.4,72,000 with 8% interest. The Kerala High Court, per Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., reconsiders quantum, noting the deceased’s non-earning status but recognizing the value of a housewife’s contribution to family maintenance. Relying on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, the court adopts a higher monthly income (Rs.8,500 for 2012) and applies a 40% addition for future prospects (per Pranay Sethi). It accepts that a deduction for personal expenses should reflect dependency realities, with parents not treated as dependents in absence of evidence. The court also revises funeral and loss of estate heads, and, guided by Magma and Satinder Kaur, awards Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium to each claimant while eliminating a separate loss of love and affection head. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and total enhanced compensation of Rs.14,38,600 is awarded, to be deposited by the insurer within three months with interest as per tribunal terms.
This is an appeal under MACA No. 1533 of 2010 from an MACT award in OP(MV) 534/2004 arising from a motor vehicle collision on 06.11.2003 near Kalpavakavadi, Karuvatta North. The appellant, Lalitha Gopinath (owner of the vehicle in which she traveled), sought compensation for injuries sustained in the accident. The MACT tribunal held the accident occurred due to negligence of both drivers and directed the third respondent (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) to pay 50% of the Rs. 2,43,546 award, depositing Rs. 1,21,773 with 6% interest. The appellant challenged both the finding of negligence and the quantum, arguing that principles from a Supreme Court decision on joint tortfeasors and insurer liability should allow fuller recovery, and that the Tribunal’s 50% deposit directive needed reconsideration. The High Court examined whether the passenger-injured could recover from co-tortfeasors, noting a distinction because the vehicle involved was owned by the appellant, placing liability on her as owner. On quantum, disability was treated as 23% (not 45%), income fixed at Rs.4,000/month (post-RA 2003 year) with multiplier 7, producing Rs.77,280 for disability. Additional heads yielded Rs. 24,000 (pain/suffering) and Rs. 21,000 (loss of amenities). Half of Rs.89,280 equaled Rs.44,640, to be deposited within three months, and the appeal was allowed with modification of the award to include this extra compensation.
The petitioner, P.C. Satheesh Kumar, is the son of Leela Antharjanam and a co-owner of Jayasree Lodgings in Guruvayur. He filed this original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P8 (03.05.1999) and P9 (16.07.1999) proceedings and also Resolution No.1 (03.05.1999) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee. He seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow his vehicles to enter via the northern gate and to use the road along the eastern bank of the temple pond for ingress/egress to Jayasree Lodgings, and to issue passes for transporting materials, and to permit him to take his motorbike KL-08/M-2459 through the northern gate to Jayasree Lodgings pending final disposal. The grievance is that the Managing Committee’s 03.05.1999 resolution restricted vehicular traffic through the northern gate for temple security, a position rooted in prior resolutions (e.g., 02.09.1998, referenced in Ext.P1 in W.A.No.1757 of 1998). Interim directions in 1999 directed the Committee to consider the request, and in 2000 the Administrator communicated that permission was granted via the eastern route (Resolution No.33, 21.04.2000). The judgment explains the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 (Sections 3, 10, 35) and Rules (3, 4, 6), as well as the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Sections 20, 51), and notes Suo Motu decisions (2021–2022) restricting Nadappanthal vehicle entry. The petition is disposed of with a directive to ensure strict compliance with the 21.06.2022 order in DBP No.21 of 2021, reflecting the balance between worshipper rights and temple security.
Con.Case(C).No.1311/2020; Con.Case(C).No.1336/2020; Con.Case(C).No.1354/2020 These three Contempt of Court petitions arise from writ petitions in which the petitioners sought change of land use records under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization (KLU) Order and subsequent processing under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act to reflect the land as purayidam/garden land. The court notes that, following a 2013 order by the RDO, the petitioners sought to update the Basic Tax Register but faced pendency due to unresolved issues from Revenue Department decisions. The court had previously indicated that the District Collector is the concurrent original authority for Rule 6(2) permissions, and that the RDO’s order could only be disturbed through appeal under Rule 11 or revision under Rule 14. The Tahsildar initially rejected the Section 6A pleas, triggering contempt. The judgment clarifies that the RDO’s 6(2) permission, once granted, remains final unless properly challenged; it directs that the Tahsildar reassess under Section 6A if the same property falls under the RDO order, and to update the BTR accordingly. The court, however, recalls that the respondent authorities must comply with directions and completes the process within six weeks following a hearing, disposing of the contempt petitions accordingly.
WP(C) Nos.29677/2016 & Conn.cases; WP(C) No.3363/2018; WP(C) No.14121/2018 This consolidated Kerala High Court writ petition concerns the regularisation of contract/guest lecturers at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. Petitioners allege that they were appointed on contract prior to statutes coming into force, have served for years, and seek regularisation or at least a direction to continue until their claims are adjudicated; the University contends absence of sanctioned posts and reliance on contractual appointment. The Court notes that the University’s Ext. P12 (2017) and Ext. P28 (2017) orders were issued without reasoned consideration and contrary to prior judicial directions, including actions ordered in earlier cases. The petitioners highlight a history of regularisation in other cases and argue for parity with regular staff, referencing Uma Devi and Nihal Singh, which demand rational assessment of need and, where warranted, regularisation within a time-bound framework. The respondents deny a right to regularisation, emphasizing the lack of sanctioned posts and the nature of appointment. After detailed analysis, the Court agrees that the impugned orders lack application of mind and misstate the status quo. It directs the University to re-examine the regularisation issue, possibly by increasing sanctioned posts or regularising within existing cadre, while ensuring equal pay for equal work and arrears for up to three years; petitions are disposed of with directions to comply within three months and to maintain employment until vacancies are filled.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4781 OF 2021 This is a bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 4781 OF 2021) by Dr. Luckson Francis Augustine, sole accused in Crime No. 3840/2021 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Kerala, under IPC sections 376(2)(n), 420, 506 and 500. The petition seeks pre-arrest bail while the investigation remains at a preliminary stage. The petitioner contends that, despite the serious allegations, he is highly educated (Engineering graduate with Ph.D.), has resided abroad, and returned to India after matrimonial disruptions. He asserts arrangements and promises to marry with the de facto complainant, including that a settlement was mediated (Annexure-R3 with Annexure-R3(c) containing an agreement to marry and withdrawal of a complaint if consent is withdrawn). The de facto complainant alleges a pattern of sexual intercourse from Oct. 2018 in Edappally and Changanassery on the promise to marry, along with financial extortion (Rs. 45 Lakhs) and defamation via social media. The State contends that investigation is at an early stage, custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the mobile phone containing nude pictures, Aadhaar copy, passport and cheque books, and to prevent witness tampering given the accused’s influence and possible absconding (British passport). The matter involves disputed consent considerations and the court cites several precedents while ultimately denying pre-arrest bail, finding prima facie materials and seriousness of the offences. The order is dated 5 October 2021 by Hon’ble Justice M.R.Anitha.
Shreyas Bejoy, a 19-year-old applicant, seeks admission to the B.Sc. Mathematics course in the sports quota at St. Albert's College (Autonomous). He attended the interview on 01.09.2021, albeit late (around 12:00 noon) after receiving the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine on 30.08.2021, which rendered him unwell and unable to appear at the scheduled 9:00 a.m. interview. The college, responding to no apparent candidates for the sports quota interview at the fixed time, reportedly merged the sports quota seats with the general quota, as per the admission prospectus. The petitioner contends that since he did attend the interview on the fixed date and time, and since the general quota seats were not yet filled, he should be admitted under the sports quota. The college argues it acted in accordance with the prospectus, and that altering the process would disturb admissions; it also relies on a Madras High Court Division Bench ruling that candidates are bound by the prospectus terms. The court, after considering the timing and the fact that no sports quota candidates had appeared at the designated time, held that there was no impediment to admitting the petitioner under the sports quota on 01.09.2021. It allowed the writ and directed immediate admission under the sports quota.
WP(C).No.16551 OF 2020(T) The petitioner, Hamza T., filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to afford police protection to safeguard his life and liberty and to take action against respondents 1 to 3 if they interfere with his life and liberty. The petition asserted threats from the 1st respondent, who is a near relative, though the writ petition failed to disclose this familial connection clearly. Respondent 1 filed a counter affidavit, and Ext.R1(c) shows FIR No.326/2020 at Perumpadappu Police Station under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC against the petitioner, based on a complaint by the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent DSP Tirur stated that a petition from the 1st respondent alleging cheating in a real estate matter was received and referred to the SHO, resulting in a case being registered; the SHO’s inquiry reportedly found no threat to the petitioner. The court noted that the Ext.P1 complaint contains no specific allegations of threat, and relied on Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana to emphasize that writ petitions for police protection require pleadings with facts and evidence. In light of the lack of specific pleadings, the court dismissed the petition, holding no entitlement to the reliefs sought.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) arising from a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning the death of Nisheeda in a May 3, 2018 accident involving a KSRTC bus. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, awarded Rs. 26,60,300 plus interest and costs to the petitioners (the deceased’s dependants). The appellant, KSRTC, challenged three aspects: (i) petitioners 3 and 4 were not dependants, (ii) the 1st petitioner (husband) was an earning member and not a dependant, and (iii) the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs.11,500 per month was on the higher side. The appellant pressed that the award should reflect correct dependants, appropriate dependency, and a justified income, arguing contributory negligence and relying on case law including Ulahannan v. Rajesh and Others and Ramachandrappa for notional income. The court noted that the 1st petitioner’s dependency is not solely financial, citing dependency as a broader relationship, and that the accident occurred in 2018 with the deceased as a computer operator earning Rs.18,000. It followed precedents (Kiran Singh ratio and New India Assurance) to emphasize the discretionary nature of compensation awards and the need to avoid protracted litigation. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal’s award, and underscored the judiciary’s role in timely, sensible relief rather than rigid arithmetic exactitude.
RSA No.145 of 2017 arises from a suit filed for a mandatory injunction to vacate the plaint schedule premises. The plaintiff, K.P. Udayakumar, asserts ownership of the suit shop building originally belonging to Choyi and procured by a sale deed evidenced by Ext.A6 (document No.4017/2012, Chevayur Sub Registry). The defendant, P.M. Aravindan, claims occupation as a licensee under Choyi by Ext.A2 dated 30.05.2012, with a monthly license fee of Rs.2,400 and a security deposit of Rs.1,25,000; the licence was to expire on 30.04.2013, but he contends possession continuing on the basis of an oral lease dating to 01.03.2001 that was later reduced to writing, with rent periodically enhanced. The plaintiff contends Ext.A2 is a license arrangement and not a lease; he asserts title in the landlord and validity of the sale deed. The defendant argues tenancy protection under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and that Ext.A2 represents a renewal rather than a termination. The trial court granted a decree for mandatory injunction directing eviction; the first appellate court upheld that decision. The High Court reappraised the evidence, found Ext.A2 to be a license, and affirmed termination, relying on the absence of proof for Ext.B1/B2 and citing precedents such as Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, Rajappan v. Veeraraghava Iyer, and Vidhyadhar. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, upholding the decree.
RadhaKrishnan Unni, the tenant in BRC(OP) No.12 of 2015, challenges eviction initiated by the landlords under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. An ex parte eviction order dated 11.03.2019 was issued against him with a 30-day deadline for vacating the petition schedule shop room, subject to deposit of arrears under Section 11(2)(c). The tenant sought to set aside the ex parte order via I.A No. 737 of 2019; the Rent Control Court dismissed that application on 22.08.2019. The tenant then appealed to the II Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam in R.C.A.No.36 of 2019, which was dismissed on 07.10.2020. Thereafter, the tenant filed a review and then a revision under Section 20. The High Court considered whether interference is warranted in this revisional jurisdiction. Relying on jurisprudence from Rukmini Amma Saradamma, T. Sivasubramaniam, Ubaiba, Hindustan Petroleum, and Thankamony Amma, the court clarified that Section 20 revisional power is supervisory and cannot function as an appellate re-appreciation of evidence; the court should examine legality, regularity, and propriety. The authorities below had concluded that the ex parte eviction order was not liable to interfere. Consequently, the revision is dismissed, and eviction proceedings continue.
W.A.No.2500 of 2015; W.A.No.1748 of 2017 This decision arises from two writ appeals by A.B. Viswanathan, retired as Senior Regional Manager of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT). The appellant challenged the impugned judgment in W.P.(C) 8283/2015 and the subsequent Review Petition RP 1066/2015, which had directed the employer to consider a representation for disbursal of leave encashment. The core issue is whether gratuity and other terminal benefits can be withheld pending disciplinary proceedings begun before retirement, under the CDA Rules and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The learned Single Judge relied on Rule 32 of the CDA Rules (pari materia to the Mahanadi Coalfields guidance) and on three-judge Supreme Court decisions (State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar; Rabindranath Choubey) to hold that withholding gratuity during pendency is permissible. The Supreme Court’s Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. decision clarifies that Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules permit continuing the inquiry post-retirement and that gratuity can be forfeited for specified misconduct; however, if exoneration occurs, interest on delayed gratuity (under Section 7(3A)) is payable. The petitioners were ultimately exonerated; the gratuity of Rs.10 lakh and leave encashment of Rs.8,26,305 were paid in early 2021, with disputes over interest. The Division Bench directs payment of interest at 8% per annum (rising to 9% if not paid within two months) and disposes of the appeals, balancing the employer’s financial constraints with the employee’s rights.
This writ appeal challenges Ext.P11 supersession order (under Section 32(1) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969) issued by the Joint Registrar superseding the Managing Committee of Thumboor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Joint Registrar, after inspection under Section 66 and listing alleged irregularities (expenditure beyond sanctioned limits, non-release of pledged gold ornaments, lavish gifts to members, excess interest payments, and employment of provisional staff), issued Ext.P7 show cause and later superseded the committee via Ext.P11. The petitioner (as President of the Bank’s Managing Committee) and other members responded with explanations; the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the requirement of consultation under Section 32(2) was met because consultees had knowledge of tentative findings and agreed to the proposal. The Division Bench reverses, holding that the mere sending of a show cause and a later communication (21.05.2019) to consultees did not convey tentative findings or furnish explanations and the proposed action for intelligent response, thereby violating the consultation requirement. Relying on Jose Kuttiyani, Sahadevan and Sanjay Nagayach, the Court emphasizes that consultation must be meaningful and informed, with tentative findings and action proposed forwarded to consultees. Consequently, Ext.P11 is quashed, the judgment of the Single Judge is set aside, and the writ appeal is allowed.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.19125/2020) filed by Narayanaswamy S. challenges the inaction of respondents in issuing possession certificate and location sketch for a property in Munnar, where he asserts uninterrupted possession since it was acquired by sale deed (Ext.P1) and later bequeathed to him. He contends he has paid land tax (Ext.P7) and building/tax receipts and had earlier obtained NOC for construction from the District Collector (Ext.P6) following a court direction (Ext.P5). The property, formerly held by his father on lease and subsequently purchased, has been in possession of the petitioner, who also alleges to have been paying taxes up to 2020 and seeks to use the possession certificate and location sketch to secure a bank loan. Respondents’ stand is that the land in question is government land under pandaravagapattam (Kanan Devan concession), and that accepting taxes on government land under the Land Tax Act is impermissible; mutation does not create or extinguish title. The court observes that possession and tax payment till 2020 are established facts, and that the District Collector had granted NOC for reconstruction as per Ext.P6. In light of precedents (Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Larson T. George), the court directs issuance of possession certificate and location sketch by the appropriate authority and allows tax acceptance from 2020 onward, subject to government proceedings. The disposition directs timely compliance and clarifies that the process remains subject to ongoing Government actions.
