Kerala High Court
Jayasree Jayaprakash vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.6666 OF 2017(G)
PETITIONERS:
1 JAYASREE JAYAPRAKASH,
AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.JAYAPRAKASH, HIG 30,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036.
2 M.G.MATHEW,
HIG 31, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036.
3 SUMA JACOB KORAH,
HIG 32, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036.
4 DR.AJITHA RAGHAVAN,
HIG 37, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036.
5 DEEPAK K.SHAH,
HIG 41, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036.
6 ELSY DAYALOO
HIG 33, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.DEEPAK
SHRI.K.VIDYASAGAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI 682 020.
3 AL-AMEEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
W.P.(C) No.6666 of 2017 2
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 24, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, A.A.KOCHUNNY.
4 MIDLAND RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO. LTD,
27/1032 PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682036.
5 SHERIN HAFFIS,
SHALIMAR HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
6 THE SECRETARY,
COCHIN CORPORATION, COCHIN.
7 COCHIN CORPORATION,
COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
8* ADDL.R8. N.R.JOSEPH,
60 YEARS, S/O.N.O.RAPPAI, HIG - 22,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR - 682 036.
(ADDL. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
25/07/2019 IN IA 2/2018)
9* ADDL.R9. THE PANAMPILLY NAGAR WELFARE
ASSOCIATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
GEORGE P. KORAH, AGED 69, S/O. V.M. KORAH,
KAIRALI APARTMENTS, COCHIN-682036.
(ADDL. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
09/07/2019 IN IA 2/2019)
R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI, SC, GREATER
COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR
R1 BY SRI.K.NARAYANAN, SC, GCDA
R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHEW
R5 BY ADV. SMT.AMY DENNY
W.P.(C) No.6666 of 2017 3
R6-7 BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
R6-7 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
R8 BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE
R8 BY ADV. SRI.R.P.SREENIVASAN
R8 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY DAVIS
R8 BY ADV. SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY
R8 BY ADV. SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL
R9 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SPL GP A.J.MAHAMED ANZAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25-03-2021, THE COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6666 of 2017 4
C.R.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.6666 of 2017
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2021.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners 1 to 5 are allottees of residential plots in
the area developed by the Greater Cochin Development
Authority (GCDA) in terms of Elamkulam West Town Planning
Scheme (the Scheme) sanctioned by the State Government
under the Town Planning Act, 1108 ME (the Act). They have
constructed residential buildings in the plots allotted to them
and are residing in their respective plots. The sixth petitioner is
the tenant of an allottee of residential plot and she is residing in
the building constructed in the said plot. Ext.P7 is the map of the
area covered by the Scheme. In Ext.P7, a plot measuring 21.308
cents is earmarked for public purposes like neighborhood
centres, schools etc. The said plot is located on the eastern side
of the plot owned by the fourth petitioner. On 24.07.1993, GCDA
sold the said plot to the third respondent for Rs.1,03,572.22/- in
terms of Ext.P1 assignment deed. It is stated, among others, in
Ext.P1 assignment deed that the assignment is for running a
nursery school in the plot; that the third respondent shall
establish the nursery school in the plot within one year as per
the plan and design approved by the GCDA and shall maintain
the same; that they shall not make any addition or alteration in
the school building without obtaining previous written approval
of the GCDA; that they shall not put the said plot to any use
except for running the nursery school and that they shall not be
entitled to transfer the plot for any purpose other than running
nursery school. The third respondent has not established the
nursery school in the plot as provided for in Ext.P1 assignment
deed. Instead, on 19.06.2010, they sold the plot to the fourth
respondent, and the fourth respondent has, in turn, sold the plot
on 28.09.2011, to the fifth respondent. The writ petition was filed
on 27.2.2017 alleging that the fifth respondent is proposing to
put up a multi storied building in the plot and that the fifth
respondent cannot make use of the plot for any purpose other
than the purpose for which the same was assigned to the third
respondent. The relief sought in the writ petition was for a
direction to the GCDA to take appropriate steps to stop the
construction proposed by the fifth respondent in the plot.
2. On 09.03.2017, the fifth respondent has filed a
counter affidavit in the matter stating, among others, that on
16.01.2006, the Chairman of the GCDA has permitted the third
respondent to make use of the land for commercial/residential
purpose in terms of Ext.R5(i) communication; that she has been
issued Ext.R5(k) building permit by the Corporation of Kochi (the
Corporation) on 6.2.2017 to put up a residential building in the
plot measuring 3502.61 square meters on the basis of the
permission granted by the Chairman of the GCDA; that she is
undertaking only the construction permitted in terms of
Ext.R5(k) building permit in the plot and that the construction
undertaken by her is therefore, in order.
3. On 16.07.2017, GCDA has filed a counter
affidavit in the matter stating, among others, that the Scheme
has so far not been varied and the area covered under the
Scheme can be used therefore, only in the manner indicated in
the Scheme.
4. On 11.08.2017, this Court ordered that the
construction in the plot will be subject to the result of the writ
petition.
5. In the meanwhile, in the light of the counter
affidavit of the fifth respondent, the petitioners amended the writ
petition and incorporated a challenge against Ext.R5(i)
permission granted by the Chairman of the GCDA and Ext.R5(k)
building permit.
6. Thereafter, on 25.07.2019, after hearing both
sides, this Court restrained the fifth respondent from proceeding
further with the construction and directed the GCDA to file an
additional counter affidavit explaining the circumstances under
which Ext.R5(i) permission has been granted to the third
respondent.
7. On 30.08.2019, an additional counter affidavit
has been filed by the fifth respondent stating, among others,
that the construction of the building is complete except as
regards its finishing works.
8. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this
Court on 25.7.2019, on 05.01.2021, the GCDA has filed an
additional counter affidavit stating, among others, that
Ext.R5(i) permission has been issued by the then Chairman of
the GCDA as he found that there is no need for a nursery school
in the area.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on
either side.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the use of the plot for any purpose other than
the purpose specified in the Scheme is wholly unauthorized and
the fifth respondent is, therefore, not entitled to put up a
residential building in the plot. It was also contended by the
learned counsel that in the light of the provisions of the Act and
the Scheme, the Chairman of the GCDA is not empowered to
permit change of user of the land and Ext.R5(i) permission is
therefore one issued without authority. It was further contended
by the learned counsel that insofar as the plot cannot be used
for construction of residential building, Ext.R5(k) building permit
issued by the Corporation is also unsustainable in law.
11. The learned Standing Counsel for the GCDA as
also the learned counsel for the additional eighth respondent
supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioners. In addition, the learned counsel for the additional
eighth respondent pointed out that the cost of the subject plot at
the time when it was sold to the third respondent was far more
than the price shown in Ext.A1 assignment deed and the plot has
been sold for such a low price as the same cannot be used for
any purpose other than the purpose mentioned in the Scheme. It
was argued by the learned counsel that the cost of acquisition of
the plot has in fact been borne by the allottees of residential
plots in the area as the same was intended for their beneficial
use and such a plot cannot be made use of by the fifth
respondent for any purpose other than the purpose
contemplated under the Scheme. It was also pointed out by the
learned counsel that only a limited right to use the subject plot
for running the nursery school has been transferred by the GCDA
to the third respondent and the fifth respondent cannot therefore
claim a better right over the property. It was argued by the
learned counsel that Ext.R5(i) communication is a fraud on the
Scheme committed by the Chairman of the GCDA and the same
does not confer any right on the fifth respondent to make use of
the land for residential purpose. It was also argued by the
learned counsel that the conduct of the fifth respondent in
putting up a multi storied residential building in the plot despite
the caution of this Court that the construction will be subject to
the outcome of the writ petition, cannot be viewed as a bona fide
act. According to the learned counsel, in the light of the specific
covenants in Ext.P1 assignment deed, it has to be presumed that
the fifth respondent has purchased the plot knowing fully well
that the same cannot be used for constructing a residential
building and her attempt was somehow to complete the
construction and then seek indulgence of the Court for its
regularization. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that if
such constructions are protected by the Court, it would not only
give a wrong message to the public, but also would encourage
such constructions in future.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the fifth
respondent contended that in the absence of any impediment for
the GCDA in selling the subject plot and insofar as the same was
purchased by the third respondent for consideration, there
cannot be any impediment at all for the fifth respondent, the
successor of the third respondent, in enjoying the plot as she
likes. It was argued by the learned counsel that the contention
that only a limited right to use the subject plot for running the
nursery school was transferred by the GCDA to the third
respondent is built on clause 2 of Ext.P1 assignment deed.
According to the learned counsel, the said clause in Ext.P1
assignment deed is hit by Section 11 of the Transfer of Property
Act. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that if at all
the Court finds that the plot could not have been used by the
fifth respondent for construction of a residential building, the
fifth respondent may be permitted to convert the building
already constructed as a neighbourhood centre so that the
resources made use of for the same would not go waste.
13. I have examined the contentions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties on either side.
14. The Act was a legislation intended to regulate
development of towns to secure to its inhabitants, sanitary
conditions, amenities and convenience. Section 3 of the Act
envisages drawing up of town planning schemes and Section 12
of the Act provides for sanctioning of the town planning schemes
drawn up by the Government. Section 13 of the Act confers
power only on the State Government to vary or revoke the town
planning schemes once drawn up and sanctioned. Section 16 of
the Act obliges owners of all the lands and buildings in the area
affected by the scheme and who propose to construct or
reconstruct or in any way alter or add to buildings, to conform to
the requirements of the town planning scheme and provides also
that no building shall be constructed or reconstructed in an area
in which the building is expressly forbidden in the town planning
scheme or which is reserved in the town planning scheme for
any purpose incompatible with building. Going by the scheme of
the Act, the provisions in the town planning schemes drawn up
and sanctioned under the Act will operate as the law governing
use of land in the area covered by the scheme and would bind all
those who acquire right or interest over such lands [See Philip
George v. State of Kerala, 2014 (2) KLT 116]. Similarly, the
provisions of the Act oblige the authorities constituted under the
Act to administer the Scheme to ensure that the land use in the
area covered by the Scheme is strictly in accordance with the
Scheme. Needless to say, if they fail, it becomes the obligation
of the Court to compel the authorities to perform their
mandatory legal obligations [See T.Damodhar Rao v. The
Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, AIR
1987 Andhra Pradesh 171].
15. Reverting to the facts, the Scheme is one drawn
up, sanctioned and implemented under the Act by acquiring
land and developing the same on sound principles of planning
into a housing colony by providing wide roads, parks, open
spaces, recreational areas, shopping complexes, schools,
neighbourhood centres etc. The house plots in the Scheme area
have been sold to persons who are desirous of purchasing the
same, by collecting from them not only the cost of the plots, but
also the proportionate share of the common facilities provided to
the allottees. The Scheme, therefore, confers on the allottees of
house plots in the scheme area a right to use the common
spaces and facilities envisaged under the Scheme. Insofar as the
subject plot is one earmarked in the Scheme for public purposes
like schools, neighbourhood centres etc., the allottees of house
plots in the scheme area have a right to use the said plot for
their needs for school, neighbourhood centres etc. In other
words, the plot cannot be used for construction of a residential
or commercial building in such a manner, depriving the allottees
their right to use the same for the purposes intended.
16. True, GCDA, the authority constituted under the
Act to whom the Government has entrusted the administration
of the Scheme, has executed Ext.P1 assignment deed in favour
of the predecessor of the fifth respondent, purporting to transfer
the ownership of the plot to them. When a plot in an area
developed for residential purpose under a scheme framed under
the Act is reserved for public purposes like establishment of
schools, neighbourhood centres etc, its owner would lose all the
ownership rights in the plot and he would be holding the plot
thereafter only in trust for the benefit of the society or the public
in general and would be precluded from transferring his interest
in it. Viewed in this angle, it could be seen that what is conveyed
by the GCDA to the third respondent in terms of Ext.P1
assignment deed was only a limited interest in the plot to use
the same for the purpose of establishing and running a nursery
school. The concept of 'limited interest' in the nature of the
present one due to operation of law, is a concept that is
recognised by law. As pointed out by the additional eighth
respondent, the materials on record indicate that only a nominal
amount of Rs.1,03,572.22 was collected by the GCDA from the
third respondent towards sale consideration of the plot. The said
fact also fortifies the view that only limited interest in the plot
was transferred by the GCDA to the third respondent. If the third
respondent had acquired only limited interest in the plot to use
the plot for running a nursery school, the fifth respondent cannot
claim any right in the land other than the right acquired by her
predecessor, the third respondent.
17. It is not disputed that the Act and the Scheme
do not confer any authority on the Chairman of the GCDA to vary
the Scheme and grant permission for change of user of a plot in
a scheme area. Ext.R5(i) permission is liable to be set aside on
that sole ground. Even though the Act confers power on the
State Government to vary the Scheme, according to me, the said
power can be exercised by the State Government only in a
manner which would promote the object of the Scheme and not
in a manner that would defeat the Scheme. The reason being
that when a public authority is empowered to take decisions in
terms of a statute in public interest, such decisions shall not only
be reached reasonably and intelligibly, but shall also be reached
having regard to the object of the statute and the purpose for
which the power is entrusted. There cannot be any doubt that
grant of permission to use a plot earmarked for public purposes
like schools, neighbourhood centres etc. in a housing area for
residential purpose of a private individual would be detrimental
to the Scheme and the interests of the allottees of house plots in
the area covered by the Scheme. In other words, according to
me, even the State Government cannot permit change of user in
respect of the subject plot in exercise of the power conferred on
it under the Act. If change of user in respect of the subject plot
cannot be permitted even by the State Government, Ext.R5(i)
permission cannot be justified on any count.
18. The Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 was
in force at the time when Ext.R5(k) building permit was issued by
the Corporation to the fifth respondent. Rule 11 of the said Rules
confers authority on the Secretary of the Corporation to issue
building permits, if the construction proposed conforms to the
provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the Rules
referred to above as also other laws. Rule 3A of the Kerala
Municipality Building Rules, 1999 categorically provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, provisions or
regulations in any Town Planning Scheme in force under the Act
shall prevail over the respective provisions of the rules wherever
such schemes exist. Rule 3A is a provision introduced long prior
to Ext.R5(k) building permit. In other words, the Secretary of the
Corporation was not empowered to issue building permit for
construction of a residential building in the plot earmarked in
terms of the provisions of the Scheme for public purposes like
neighbourhood centres, schools etc. The upshot of the
discussion is that Ext.R5(k) building permit is unsustainable in
law.
19. I shall now deal with the contention advanced by
the learned counsel for the fifth respondent on the basis of
Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act. The case set out by
the fifth respondent is that clause 2 of Ext.P1 assignment deed,
which provides that the third respondent is precluded from
putting the plot assigned to it to any use except for the
construction of a nursery school building, is hit by Section 11 of
the Transfer of Property Act. Section 11 of the transfer property
Act reads thus :
11. Restriction repugnant to interest created.--
Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is
created absolutely in favour of any person, but the terms
of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or
enjoyed by him in a particular manner, he shall be entitled
to receive and dispose of such interest as if there were no
such direction.
Where any such direction has been made in respect
of one piece of immoveable property for the purpose of
securing the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of
such property, nothing in this section shall be deemed to
affect any right which the transferor may have to enforce
such direction or any remedy which he may have in
respect of a breach thereof.
True, in the light of the said provision, once an interest is created
absolutely in favour of a person on a transfer of property, there
cannot be any fetters on the enjoyment of the interest so
created. As indicated, what is transferred in terms of Ext.P1
assignment deed is only limited interest for the purpose of
establishing and running a nursery school in the plot and since
no fetters whatsoever is created in terms of the document in the
matter of the transferee enjoying the said limited interest,
Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, according to me, has
no application.
20. As noted, the writ petition was filed just after
the fifth respondent has obtained permit to put up the building in
the plot and the construction was, therefore, carried out by the
fifth respondent during the pendency of the writ petition. What
shall be the fate of the said construction is the next issue. In the
light of the finding that the plot could not have been utilised for
construction of a residential building and that the building
permit, on the strength of which the construction was
undertaken, was not one issued in accordance with law, the
building can be regarded only as an unauthorised one. Is this
Court obliged to order demolition of such a building and if not,
what shall be the relief to which the petitioners are entitled to,
are the questions to be examined.
21. Mere departure from the authorised plan or
putting up construction without permit, does not ipso facto
justify demolition of the constructions and the constructions that
are to be demolished are those involving grave breaches of
statutory provisions, affecting the interests of the public. Other
constructions can certainly be compounded, of course on
imposition of appropriate and proportionate penalty, for
otherwise, compounding of such constructions would give a
wrong message to the public and encourage unauthorised
construction [See Syed Muzaffar Ali v. Municipal Corpn. of
Delhi, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 426]. The question as to which
construction is to be demolished and which is not to be
demolished, has to be decided on the facts of each case.
Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is not a case where
constructions in the nature of one undertaken by the fifth
respondent is prohibited in the area. On the other hand, the plot
is one surrounded by residential buildings of similar nature.
Further, it is not a case where the construction is carried out
violating the Building Rules applicable, except as regards the
provisions therein relating to the land user. On the other hand,
the construction was made on the strength of the building permit
issued by the local body. The construction is found to be
unauthorised as the plot is one earmarked under the Scheme for
schools, neighbourhood centres etc. The said reservation being
one intended for the benefit of the allottees of residential plots
in the area, when the said provision was flouted, the
consequence is only that the beneficiaries of the scheme are
deprived of the benefit. According to me, in the peculiar facts of
this case, the construction is one that could be condoned by
directing the fifth respondent to make good the loss caused by
her to the allottees. While holding so, I am fully conscious of the
fact that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution cannot be invoked for condoning an illegal and
illegitimate act. Nevertheless, I am taking this view having
regard to the wastage of resources, nuisance and inconvenience
to the people residing close to the building, environmental
impact etc., in the event of demolition being ordered, and the
direction I propose to issue to the fifth respondent to make good
the loss caused to the allottees.
22. Having taken the said view, the matter which
was heard and reserved for orders once was posted again and
the learned counsel for the parties on either side were requested
to address the Court as to the directions to be issued to the fifth
respondent to make good the loss caused to the allottees.
Though a few opportunities were granted, both the petitioners as
also the fifth respondent were unable to make any workable
proposals.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ
petition directing the second respondent to constitute a panel of
three valuers registered with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Board of India to assess the value of the plot purchased by the
fifth respondent from the fourth respondent, and directing the
fifth respondent to deposit the value of the plot as assessed by
the panel of valuers appointed by the second respondent, with
the second respondent. Ordered accordingly. This process shall
be completed within two months. On depositing the value of the
plot with the second respondent, the fifth respondent would be
entitled to prefer an application before the Corporation for
regularisation of the construction and if such an application is
preferred by the fifth respondent after depositing with the
second respondent the amount directed above, the Corporation
shall regularise the construction carried out by the fifth
respondent, if the same is in conformity with the Building Rules,
except as regards the land user. The second respondent shall
deposit the amount aforesaid, in turn, in a nationalised bank
under any of their fixed deposit schemes and shall hold the said
amount with interest in trust for the allottees of residential plots
under the Scheme. The second respondent shall, thereafter
invite suggestions from the allottees of residential plots under
the Scheme as to the manner in which the amount in deposit is
to be made use of for the benefit of the allottees and free to
make use of the amount in deposit for the said purpose, after
obtaining orders from this Court. The writ petition would be
deemed to be pending for the said limited purpose.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
YKB
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3302/1993
OF S.R.O. ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY DETAILS OF PLOT
NO.37 HELD BY THE PETITIONER NO.4.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
ENCUMBRANCE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25/2/2017.
EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P(C)
NO. 16440/2017. PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
EARLIER VACANT LAND. (IN IA 5845/2017)
EXHIBIT P6A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SUBSEQUENT
PREPARATORY WORKS.
EXHIBIT P6B TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.16440 OF 2017
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ELAMKULAM WEST TOWN
PLANNING SCHEME.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN THE CON.
CASE NO.1818/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.01.2021 IN THE CONT.CASE
NO.1818/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
DATED 16-01-2006 RECEIVED FROM GCDA BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE DATED 29-10-2005 ISSUED BY
GCDA.
EXHIBIT R3 (C) TRUE COPY TRUST DEED OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
8473/C6/EWTPS DATED 29-10-2005 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT GAVE A 'NO
OBJECTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR
SELLING THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY GCDA.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-01-
2006 BEARING REF. NO. 378/PLI/06/GCDA
ISSUED BY GCDA TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
UTILIZE THE PLOT FOR
COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE.
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 15-06-
2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD
RESPONDENT AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
4231/2011 DATED 28-09-2011 EXECUTED
BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
4231/2011 OF ERNAKULAM SRO
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION/NON
ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION/NON
ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST PROPERTY TAX
RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST PROPERTY TAX
RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST PROPERTY TAX
RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
2154/2010 IN FAVOUR OF MIDLAND RUBBER &
PRODUCE CO. LTD.
EXHIBIT R5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GREATER COCHIN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT R5(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(J) TRUE COPY OF THE INITIAL DRAWING OF
PANAMPILLY NAGAR HOUSING SCHEME (TOWN
PLANNING SCHEME FOR ELAMKULAM WEST
AREA-ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT R5(K) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT 6-2-
2017.
EXHIBIT R5(L) PHOTOGRAPHS TO DEMONSTRATE THE PRESENT
STAGE OF THE WORK
EXHIBIT R5(M) PHOTOGRAPHS TO DEMONSTRATE THE PRESENT
STATE OF WORK.
EXHIBIT R5(N) PHOTOGRAPHS TO DEMONSTRATE THE PRESENT
STATE OF WORK.
EXHIBIT R5(O) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 3RD RESPONDENT AL-
AMEEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST.
EXHIBIT R5(P) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT AL-AMEEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R8 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ELAMKULAM WEST TOWN
PLANNING SCHEME.
EXHIBIT R8 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3564/1994
DATED 18.7.1994 OF ERNAKULAM SUB
REGISTRY BY WHICH THE 2ND RESPONDENT
CONVEYED PLOT NO.37(HIG HOUSE NO.37) TO
DR.AJITHA VENUGOPAL.
EXHIBIT R8 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT AGREEMENT
DATED 10.6.1982 BY WHICH THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AGREED TO CONVEY PLOT NO.60
(HIG HOUSE NO.60) TO SRI.M.J.KURIAN.
EXHIBIT R9 (A) TRUE COPY OF ELAMKULAM WEST TOWN
PLANNING SCHEME.
EXHIBIT R9 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3564/1994
DATED 18.7.1994 OF ERNAKULAM SUB
REGISTRY BY WHICH THE 2ND RESPONDENT
CONVEYED PLOT NO.37(HIG HOUSE NO.37) TO
DR.AJITHA VENUGOPAL.
EXHIBIT R9 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT AGREEMENT
DATED 10.6.1982 BY WHICH THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AGREED TO CONVEY PLOT NO.60
(HIG HOUSE NO.60) TO SRI.M.J.KURIAN.
