Travancore Devaswom Board vs National Highways Authority Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1949 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                                &

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

 TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.13037 OF 2020(D)

PETITIONER:

               TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHENCODE,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

               BY ADV. SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

RESPONDENTS:

      1        NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
               G5 AND G6, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110
               075, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

      2        THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
               NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
               PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               T.C 36/414 (3), NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY
               SCHOOL, PALKULANGARA, PETTA (PO),
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.

      3        THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR/COMPETENT
               AUTHORITY,LAND ACQUISITION (NH), KUDAPPANAKKUNU
               P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.

               R1 & R2 BY S.C. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
               R3 BY SR. G.P.SRI.T.K.ANANDAKRISHNAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON     19.01.2021,    ALONG     WITH    WP(C).13371/2020(V)&
WP(C).13683/2020(I), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)Nos.13037, 13371 &              2
13683 of 2020




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                                        &

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

  TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                            WP(C).No.13371 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONES:

        1        H.H.GOURI PARVATHI BAYI
                 AGED 78 YEARS
                 W/O CRR VARMA KOWDIAR PALACE,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

        2        H.H.GOURI LAKSHMI BAYI,
                 AGED 73 YEARS
                 W/O R.R.VARMA KOWDIAR PALACE,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
                 SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN
                 SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN
                 SMT.BHANU THILAK

RESPONDENTS:

        1        TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

        2        DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
                 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
 W.P.(C)Nos.13037, 13371 &         3
13683 of 2020



        3        STATE OF KERALA,
                 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY , GOVERNMENT
                 SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

        4        SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
                 LA-NH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

        5        UNION OF INDIA,
                 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD
                 TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
                 NEW DELHI-110 001.

        6        NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
                 (MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS),
                 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, TC 36/414(5),
                 KOYIKKAL VEEDU, KAVU LANE, PALKULANGARA,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. REPRESENTED BY
                 PROJECT DIRECTOR, NHAI-PIU-TVM.

                 R1-2 BY SRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
                 R3 & R4 BY SR.G.P.SRI.T.K.ANANDAKRISHNAN
                 R6 BY S.C.SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
                 R5 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON     19.01.2021,    ALONG     WITH    WP(C).13037/2020(D)&
WP(C).13683/2020(I), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)Nos.13037, 13371 &              4
13683 of 2020




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                                        &

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

  TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                            WP(C).No.13683 OF 2020(I)


PETITIONERS:

        1        THIRUVARATTUKAVU DEVI (A PERPETUAL MINOR)
                 REP.BY ASOK KUMAR.K,A DEVOTEE,
                 MUTTATTILVEEDU,KOLLAMPUZHA,
                 ATTINGAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101.

        2        RENJITH.R,
                 R.R.BHAVAN,KOLLAMPUZHA,
                 ATTINGAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101.

                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN
                 SRI.B.HARRYLAL

RESPONDENTS:

        1        UNION OF INDIA
                 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
                 MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
                 PARIVAHANBHAVAN,PARLIAMENT STREET,
                 NEW DELHI-110001.

        2        NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,(NHAT),
                 G-5 AND 6,DWARAKA SECTOR-10,NEW DELHI-110075,
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
 W.P.(C)Nos.13037, 13371 &         5
13683 of 2020



        3        SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT
                 AUTHORITY(LANH),
                 OFFICE OF LA (NH)OFFICE,CIVIL STATION,
                 COLLECTORATE,KUDAPPANAKKUNNU.P.O,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

        4        ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,LA(NH),
                 OFFICE OF LA(NH)OFFICE,CIVIL STATION,
                 COLLECTORATE,KUDAPPANAKKUNNU.P.O,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

        5        TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                 DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS,
                 NANTHANKODE,KAWDIYAR.P.O,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

                 R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
                 R2 BY S.C.SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
                 R3-4 BY SR. G.P. SRI.T.K.ANANDAKRISHNAN
                 R5 BY SRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON     19.01.2021,    ALONG     WITH    WP(C).13037/2020(D)&
WP(C).13371/2020(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)Nos.13037, 13371 &              6
13683 of 2020




                                 JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

The issues involved in these writ petitions are intertwined

and interrelated and hence they were considered jointly and are being

disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners allege

arbitrariness and illegality in Ext.P2 notification issued under Section

3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'The Act'),

proposing acquisition of the property belonging to Thiruvarattukavu

Devi Temple having an extent of 44.52 Ares comprised in Survey

No.642 of Attingal Village for widening of NH-66 viz., Attingal By Pass.

The property is located in between the sector CH.530+800 and

CH.530+900. They also allege hasty action to finalise the declaration

under Section 3D of the Act without considering their objections. Their

actual grievance is against the realignment in between the aforesaid

chainage in such a manner adversely affecting the rights of

Thiruvarattukavu Devi Temple in Attingal under Varkala Group which is

an ancient temple constructed more than 700 years back. It is the

'family deity' (പരദ വത) of the Travancore Royal Family where 'Ariyittu

Vazhcha', which is a ritual being performed from time immemorial. It is

further contended that in case the realignment as proposed is

accomplished it would cause acquisition of temple properties including

13683 of 2020

the 'Pattupura', 'Seevelippatha', 'Anakkottil' and 'Kannimoola' of the

temple. According to the faith of Hindus any kind of destruction of

Kannimoola of the temple amounts to mutilation of the limb of the 'God

of Housing'. They would allege change of alignment at the instance of a

retired Deputy Tahsildar in respect of the very same project, of course,

in respect of another sector, made with a view to save his property.

They would also contend that if the original proposal in regard to the

acquisition of the property of the temple was pursued with it would

have caused only less damage to the temple than the present proposal,

in the sense that it would have caused only acquisition of a lesser

extent of the property belonging to the temple. It is the further

contention that if acquisition as now proposed under Ext.P2 is finalised

it would virtually lead to loss of liveliness of the temple (Kshethra

Chaithanyam). It is in the said circumstances that the Travancore

Devaswom Board as also the other writ petitioners in unison raised

grievances in regard to the proposal in the notification issued under

Section 3A(1) of the Act with a view to save acquisition of 'Pattupura',

'Seevelippatha', 'Anakkottil' and 'Kannimoola' of the temple.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for National Highways

Authority of India and the Project Director of National Highways

Authority of India as also the learned Government Pleader appearing

13683 of 2020

for the competent authority viz., Special Deputy Collector, Land

Acquisition (NH).

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of

respondents 1 and 2 viz., National Highways Authority of India and the

Project Director of National Highways Authority of India and a

statement was filed on behalf of the third respondent, the competent

authority. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 it is

stated that earlier the DPR consultant for the project viz., M/s.SMEC

India Private Limited was directed to submit a report on the aforesaid

issues raised in the writ petitions and they submitted a report after

conducting a site inspection on the following lines:-

"1. Thiruvarattukavu temple is located at 530+800 Left Hand Side of the Project road. The alignment is designed in such a way that there is no damage to the main temple building. Only the small portion of compound wall and small portion at the corner is affected. Main temple building is not at all affected.

2. If the alignment is shifted towards Right Hand Side at Thiruvarattukavu temple location (CH:530+800), then the temple on Right Hand Side at CH: 530+900 as well as about 10 more residential buildings in Right Hand Side will get affected. At present, the main structures of both the temples are not affected.

3. Moreover if any shift in alignment towards Right Hand Side is made, it will affect more than 500 meters beyond that 500 mts forward from temple location. This will ultimately result increase in number of residential buildings affected hence the overall cost will upsurge.

13683 of 2020

4. The alignment was designed without doing any damage to the main temple structures. This was followed in case of all religious structures throughout the project corridor as directed by the State Government to the maximum possible extent. The design was done by following all applicable technical specification and design parameters."

4. Going by the report the alignment is decided in such a

way that only a small portion of the compound wall and small portion of

the corner of the temple would be affected. At the same time, it is

further stated that if the alignment is shifted towards right at

Thiruvarattukavu temple location then another temple on the right hand

side at CH: 530+900 as well as 10 more residential buildings in right

hand side would get affected. Above all, it is stated that if acquisition is

affected as proposed it would not affect the main structures of the

temple. At the same time, the report is conspicuously silent as to

which part/parts of the temple would be affected if acquisition is

effected as proposed. It is also stated in the report that any shifting in

the alignment would compel the authorities to acquire acquisition of

properties about 500 metres beyond and 500 metres forward from

temple location. In the circumstances, the learned Standing Counsel

for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that at this point of time no

interference at the instance of the petitioners is possible and

permissible and to support the stand relied on the decisions of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Dr.Kushala Shetty and

13683 of 2020

others [(2011) 12 SCC 69] as also in The Project Director,

Project Implementation Unit v. P.V.Krishnamoorthy and Ors.

(MANU/SC/0924/2020).

5. The learned Standing Counsel drew our attention to

paragraph 24 of the decision in Dr.Kushala Shetty's case (supra) to

canvass the position that the scope of interference in respect of

acquisition of properties for the purpose of National Highways is very

limited. Virtually, the decision in P.V.Krishnamoorthy's case (supra)

also reiterated the same position. True that going by the position laid

down in those decisions scope of interference in respect of acquisition

for the purpose of National Highways, is very minimal. At the same

time, a scanning of the aforesaid decisions would reveal that the Apex

Court had not laid down a law making any interference in the matter of

acquisition for National Highways absolutely impossible or

impermissible. In fact, the learned counsel also did not canvass such a

position. True that, when National Highways Authority implements

projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways

after thorough study by experts in different fields the Courts are not at

all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular

project overruling such studies. Respondents 1 and 2 are therefore

justified in taking a stand relying on the decisions Dr.Kushala Shetty's

case (supra) and in Krishnamoorthy's case (supra) that the scope of

13683 of 2020

judicial review in such circumstances will be very limited. It is to be

noted that the Apex Court held that Courts could nullify the acquisition

of land in rarest of rare cases in respect of any particular project, if it is

found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to

mala fides. The Apex Court also held that the Courts shall not

ordinarily interfere with such acquisition unless the power is being

exercised malafide or for collateral purposes or the decision is dehors

the Act, irrational or otherwise unreasonable or so-called purpose is not

public purpose at all and fraud of statute is manifest. In other words, it

is held that Courts shall not sit over such decisions as a Court of appeal.

Bearing in mind the aforesaid decisions as also the contentions of

respondents 1 and 2, which are virtually endorsed by the third

respondent we will consider the contentions of the petitioners.

6. At the very outset it is to be noted that as relates the

location in question only a notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act

was published and declaration under Section 3D of the Act is yet to be

published. We have already taken note of the fact that one of the

contentions of the petitioners is that before reaching the sector in

question (CH: 530 + 800 and CH:530 + 900) in respect of the same

project corridor while going on with the acquisition proceedings

alignment was changed when it was found that the then proposed

alignment in respect of that location would affect property belonging to

13683 of 2020

a retired Revenue Officer. Along with the writ petition filed by the

Travancore Devaswom Board viz., W.P.(C)No.13037 of 2020 a Note of

the District Collector dated 20.6.2016 is produced as Ext.P13.

Paragraph 1 of the aforesaid Note assumes relevance in this context. It

is stated therein thus:-

"1. At Kazhakkoottam, the official assisting the NHAI, one Shri.Rajappan Nair, who was a Deputy Tahsildar in revenue department owns a three storied building worth crores of rupees on the eastern side of the road. This structure remains untouched and half of the mosque opposite to his property is to be demolished and land acquired. This has created heavy protest against land acquisition from the public in this stretch."

(underline supplied)

As per the said Note vast tract of Government land on the side of the

existing National Highway are not seen included in the alignment and

on the other hand, Patta land on the opposite side alone has been

included. To exemplify the same reference was made in respect of

locations at Kadambattukonam and Kaniyapuram. It is thus obvious

that whatever be the reason in respect of the project in question

during the course of acquisition realignment was effected deviating

from the original proposal. That apart, it would reveal that what is

contained in the report of M/s.SMEC India Private Limited relating the

direction of the State Government to design the alignment without

doing any damage to religious structures, was not adhered to, at

Kazhakkoottam and the same situation is likely to occur in the present

13683 of 2020

location as well. The very case of the Travancore Devaswom Board is

that in respect of the location in question but for the realignment

proposed under Ext.P2 acquisition as proposed, if pursued, would have

caused only lesser damage to the properties belonging to the temple.

However, if the presently proposed alignment is proceeded with, it

would cause acquisition of 'Pattupura', 'Seevelippatha', 'Anakkottil' and

'Kannimoola' in the south western corner of the temple. Going by the

faith of Hindus damage or destruction of the aforesaid structures would

diminish and destroy 'Kshethra Chaithanyam' viz., liveliness.

7. The contention of the petitioners is that if the earlier

alignment was proceeded with in respect of the location in question it

would have avoided acquisition of Kannimoola as also the

aforementioned important structures of the temple. It would reveal

that the Travancore Devaswom Board as also the other petitioners are

not totally against the acquisition of the properties for the purpose of

NH-66 at Attingal By Pass. The report of M/s.SMEC India Private

Limited, extracted hereinbefore, reveals the stand of the State

Government in regard to religious structures and also the stand of the

DPR consultant while designing the alignment. However, the Note of

the District Collector referred to would indicate their infraction,

seemingly, in avoidable circumstances. Be that as it may, here,

declaration under Section 3D of the Act is yet to be made. According to

13683 of 2020

the petitioners, the earlier realignment, if finalised would have caused

only minimum damage to the properties of the temple and at any rate,

it would not have caused damage to the aforementioned structures of

the temple including Kannimoola. It is the specific case of the

Travancore Devaswom Board that as early as in 2016 itself they filed an

objection which was not actually taken up and considered. In this

context it is also relevant to refer to Section 3C of the National

Highways Act that deals with 'hearing of objections' pursuant to the

issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act. It is also a fact

that in the aforesaid sector in respect of the property in question and

the nearby places declaration under Section 3D of the Act is yet to be

made. In other words, in respect of places covering CH:530 + 800 and

CH:530 + 900 it is not published. When that be the circumstances, we

are of the view that without making any observation touching the

merits of the contentions, taking note of the purpose of the provision

under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, it is only proper to

direct the third respondent, the competent authority to consider the

objections of the petitioners as also the stand of the National Highways

Authorities viz., respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.13037 of 2020 for

resisting the aforesaid contentions before issuing declaration under

Section 3D of the Act.

13683 of 2020

8. In view of what is stated above, the third respondent is

directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioners including the

Travancore Devaswom Board as also the stand of the National Highways

Authority of India as also its Project Director before issuing declaration

under Section 3D of the Act in respect of places covering CH: 530 +

800 and CH: 530 + 900. The aforesaid parties shall also be given an

opportunity of being heard. After considering such objections

appropriate orders thereon shall be passed expeditiously, at any rate,

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. Till such a decision is taken by the competent authority

under Section 3C of the Act no further steps shall be taken in respect of

the sector viz. CH: 530 + 800 and CH: 530 + 900 and it is made clear

that till such a decision is taken the interim order passed in these writ

petitions, will continue to be in force.

The writ petitions are disposed of as above.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL Judge

TKS

13683 of 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13037/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF ATTINGAL VILLAGE

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.1.2020 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 14.3.2020

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 5.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 3D RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF SURVEY SKETCH

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ROUGH PLAN PREPARED BY THE HEAD SURVEYOR OF THE BOARD

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BOARD DATED 11.6.2020

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE INWARD REGISTER KEPT IN THE OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY PETITIONERS DATED 24.6.2020

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8.6.2018 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 29.6.2018.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED TO THE 2016 NOTIFICATION DATED 4.7.2016 BY PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED TO THE 2016 NOTIFICATION DATED 20.4.2017 BY PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 8.7.2019 GIVEN TO THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR P.W.D TO EXEMPT THE TEMPLE PROPERTY FROM ACQUISITION FOR ATTINGAL BY-PASS

13683 of 2020

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 20/6/2016

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT SKETCH OF GOOGLE IMAGE

EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION BEARINGNO.ROC.

18826/18/L DATED 04.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LA (NH) ADDRESSED TO THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

EXHIBIT R3(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NHAI/PIU-

TVM/404/2020/469 DATED 23.06.2020 FORWARDING COPY OF THE DETAILED PROJECT REPORT CONSULTANT TO THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA (NH) WITH RELEVANT PAGE OF THE TECBNICAL REPORT.

EXHIBIT R3(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE DEVASWOM BOARD BEARING NO.ROC 17932/2018/LAND DATED 23.06.2020.

EXHIBIT R3(e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 24.06.2020.

EXHIBIT R3(f) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2020.

13683 of 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13371/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 14.3.2020

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ALIGNMENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 4.6.2020 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE THANTHRI DATED 9.7.2018

13683 of 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13683/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE FIRST NOTIFICATION DATED 16/02/2010 OF SY.642 OF ATTINGAL VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF NOTIFICATION DATED 27/3/2012

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF NOTIFICATION DATED 14/3/2020

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19/3/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/03/2020

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/6/2020 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B1-231/2020 DATED 9/6/2020

TKS