Kerala High Court
Gopinathan vs The Peruvembu Grama Panchayath on 20 May, 2022
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
& 14738/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 28421 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
GOPINATHAN
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN,
RESIDING AT PANCHANAKOLUMBIL
PALATHULLI, PERUVEMBU P.O, PALAKKAD 678 531
BY ADVS.
SRI T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PERUVEMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PERUMVEMBU P.O, PALAKKAD 678 531
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 THE SECRETARY,
THE PERUVEMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PERUMVEMBU P.O, PALAKKAD 678 531
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD
PIN 678 001
4 VENUGOPALAN M,
S/O. LATE MADHAVAN,
RESIDING AT PANCHENAKULAMBU,
PALATHULLY, PERUMVEMBU POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 531
BY ADVS.
SRI BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI LIJU. M.P
SRI R.RAJ PRADEEP
SRI B.S.SYAMANTHAK, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14738/2021, THE COURT ON
20.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
& 14738/2021 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 14738 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 VENUGOPALAN M.,
S/O. LATE MADHAVAN,
PANCHENAKULAMBU,
PALATHULLY,
PERUVEMBU POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531.
2 JAYARAMAN P.M.,
S/O. LATE MADHAVAN,
PANCHENAKULAMBU,
PALATHULLY,
PERUVEMBU POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531.
3 SAROJINI.V.,
W/O. LATE JAGATHKUMARAN,
PANCHENAKULAMBU,
PALATHULLY,
PERUVEMBU POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531.
4 SETHUNATH P.N.,
S/O. NARAYANAN,
PANCHENAKULAMBU,
PALATHULLY,
PERUVEMBU POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531.
BY ADVS.
SRI SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI LIJU. M.P
SRI JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY
RESPONDENTS:
1 PERUVEMBA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
PERUVEMBA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY,
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
& 14738/2021 3
PERUVEMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PERUVEMBA POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531,
3 GOPINATHAN
S/O. RAMAN,
PANCHENAKULAMBU,
PALATHULLY, PERUVEMBU POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531.
4 HARIDAS,
S/O. RAMAN,
PANCHENAKULAMBU,
PALATHULLY, PERUVEMBU POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531.
5 CHANDRAN,
S/O. CHATHU,
PANCHENAKULAMBU,
PALATHULLY, PERUVEMBU POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 531.
BY ADVS.
SRI BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI R.RAJ PRADEEP
SRI B.DEEPAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).28421/2020, THE COURT ON
20.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
& 14738/2021 4
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.28421 of 2020 & 14738 of 2021
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022
JUDGMENT
The issues involved in these two writ petitions are intrinsically
connected and the writ petitions are being heard and disposed of
together.
W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020
2. The petitioner owns 9 cents of land in Re-Sy.No.386/2010
of Peruvembu Village. He has constructed a residential building
therein. The property was purchased as per document No.369/1996
of SRO, Koduvayoor. There is a pathway in front of the property,
which according to the petitioner, is having a width of 2.5 Metres. It
is stated that on the other side of the pathway, there is a paddy field
belonging to several persons, including the 4 th respondent. It is
further submitted that the pathway leads to the property of the 4 th
respondent and other residents. The contention of the petitioner is
that the pathway does not belong to the Panchayat and hence it
does not find a place in the Road Register of the Panchayat.
According to the petitioner, the 4 th respondent tried to take water
from the canal lying on the northern side of the petitioner's property
abutting the Olassery- Palathully Road, for cultivating his paddy
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
fields on the southern side through the mud road, which was
questioned by the petitioner and taken up as complaints before the
Panchayat, Village Office as well as the District Collector, Palakkad.
According to the petitioner, water was being taken through the
pathway which results in erosion of the soil and reduced the width of
the pathway. The petitioner submits that he had suggested that a
pipe should be laid on the side of the pathway to take the water for
the purpose of irrigation of the paddy fields. Ext.P1 is the complaint
dated 19.5.2017 preferred before the Village Officer. Ext.P2 is the
complaint dated 213.2018 preferred before the Panchayat by the 4 th
respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14738 of 2021.
According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner has trespassed into
the pathway and constructed a compound wall, and made illegal
constructions on his property. The petitioner submits that the
Panchayat Committee on 22.9.2018 had in its decision Ext.P3, found
the complaint of the 4th respondent justified, that the petitioner has
trespassed into the pathway, and that the branches of the trees
standing on the property of the petitioner are creating obstacles to
the taking of tractors and other harvesting machines for the purpose
of irrigation. It was also decided to take necessary action. According
to the petitioner, even though action was being taken on the
complaint of the 4th respondent, no action was being taken on the
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
complaint which had been preferred by him. The 2 nd respondent on
24.12.2019 issued Ext.P4 notice to the petitioner directing him to
remove the obstructions created in the Panchayat Road and report
the same to the office of the 2nd respondent, failing which, action will
be taken as per Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of
Encroachment and Imposition and Recovery of Penalty for
Unauthorised Occupation) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as
the 1996 Rules). The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 objection in which
he had also questioned the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. The 4 th
respondent filed W.P.(C)No.3762 of 2020 before this Court, which
was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. This Court, without going into
the merits of the controversy in the matter, ordered the competent
authority of the Panchayat to issue a notice of hearing to the
petitioners as well as respondents 6 to 8 in the writ petition and
after hearing the parties, to render a considered decision in the
matter in accordance with the law, without delay. This Court directed
that the specific contention of the petitioner and others in this writ
petition that in view of the pending civil suit, the Panchayat does not
have the competence to implement its resolution should also be
considered. The petitioner submits that he had already approached
the Munsiff Court, Palakkad seeking an order of injunction against
the highhanded activities of the 4 th respondent and that there was
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
also a counter case pending before the same court. The copy of the
judgment in O.P.(C).No.1053 of 2020 has been produced as Ext.P7,
which says that the 4th respondent shall not discharge water into the
pathway by putting an opening in the 'chal'. The petitioner has also
produced Ext.P8 which is the report of the Commissioner filed in
O.S.No.261 of 2019. The petitioner submits that the property of the
petitioner is covered by a valid sale deed which refers to the
boundary on all the four sides and any dispute regarding the same
can only be determined by an appropriate civil court and that the
Panchayat authorities cannot take a decision on it. It is submitted
that the boundary of the petitioner's property is a 40 year old
fencing which cannot be disturbed by the Panchayat, or any persons
based on any report obtained behind the back of the petitioner
without any authority. The writ petition has been filed praying to
quash Ext.P10 order whereby it has been directed to demolish the
construction of the truss work on the petitioner's property. The
petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the 2 nd respondent to
pass orders on the complaint raised by the petitioner regarding the
drawing of water through the road lying in front of the petitioner's
house and for a declaration that the 2 nd respondent has no authority
to pass any orders touching the title of the petitioner's property as
resolved by the Panchayat Committee as per Ext.P3 resolution. The
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
petitioner has thereafter filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 producing Ext.P11,
which is an order dated 24.3.2021 wherein the 2 nd respondent has
directed the removal of the fence within a period of 15 days. The
order is issued in exercise of the powers under the 1996 Rules.
3. The 4th respondent who is the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.14738 of 2021 has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that
the road in front of the petitioner's property is a public road having a
width of 4.1 metres and a length of about 150 metres, through
which, tractor, harvesting machine, lorry and other conveyances for
the purpose of agricultural operations are being taken. According to
the 4th respondent, the petitioner after purchase of the 9 cents of
property abutting the road, started encroaching into the road in such
a manner that it affects the ingress and egress of the 4 th respondent
and others. It is stated that overhanging branches of the trees
standing in the property of the petitioner also cause hindrance to the
movement through the road. Ext.R4(a) report of the Taluk Surveyor
has been produced to show that there are encroachments by the
petitioner and one Chandran and Haridas. Ext.R4(b) notice dated
13.2.2019 is produced, which has been issued by the 2 nd respondent
to the petitioner regarding the encroachment. The 4 th respondent
has also produced the plaint in O.S.No.261/2019 filed by the
petitioner as Ext.R4(c) and the order dated 17.8.2019 in
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
I.A.No.1494 of 2019 in the suit as Ext.R4(d). Ext.R4(e) is the
judgment in C.M.A.No.82 of 2019 issued by the Additional District
Court-V, Palakkad against Ext.R4(d) order. It is the contention of
the 4th respondent that in terms of Section 169 of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, public roads vest in the Panchayat and it is
the duty of the Panchayat to properly maintain the roads vested in it
as per Section 170 of the Act. It is submitted that under Section
220 of the Act, no encroachment shall be made on such roads. Rule
4 of the 1996 Rules has been cited to say that the Panchayat would
be the absolute authority to evict unauthorised occupants from the
land vested in the Panchayat. It is hence submitted that it is within
the power of the Panchayat to evict any encroacher. According to
the 4th respondent, the width of the way which has been shown as
2.5 metres has been shown with an ulterior motive and the actual
width is 4.1 metres. It is further submitted that the disputed road is
very much there in the records of the Panchayat.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioners and the
4th respondents are neighbours and are in inimical terms. It is
stated that the 4th respondent has paddy fields towards the south of
the property of the petitioner and the Olassery-Palathully Road is
towards the north of the area and the earthen road originates from
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
the Olassery-Palathully Road and ends near the property of the 4 th
respondent in Panchenakulambu. It is stated that during the
months of October, November, and December, the water for
irrigation purposes from the Chitoorpuzha Irrigation Canal is brought
to the paddy fields through the road three days a week, which had
been a practice for several years. It is stated in the counter affidavit
that on a complaint received from the 4 th respondent regarding the
encroachment, measurement was carried out through the Taluk
Surveyor and it is found that the petitioner and two other persons
who owned properties in Sy.Nos.386/9, 386/10, and 386/13 have
encroached into the earthen road in Sy. No.386/12 in Block No.48 of
Peruvemba village by erecting barbed wire fencing. It is stated in
the counter affidavit that the Panchayat and its Secretary are not
parties in the civil suits, and they are unaware of the facts and
averments in the civil suits pending before various courts in
Palakkad. It is specifically submitted that the petitioner's property is
in Sy.No.386/10, while the road is in Sy.No.386/12. The report of
the Taluk Surveyor and the sketch prepared by him have been
produced as Exts.R2(a) and R2(b). The copy of the BTR of
Sy.No.386/12 and FMP of the area have also been produced as
Exts.R2(c) and R2(d). It is further stated that Ext.P10 is an
appealable order and that the petitioner has not availed of the
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
appellate remedy. Ext.R2(e) is the copy of resolution No.23 dated
15.1.2021 of the 1st respondent wherein it was resolved to evict the
petitioner and others from the encroached portion. A notice
directing them to vacate was issued on 24.5.2021, but on account of
the Covid pandemic, no further action was taken.
W.P.(C)No.14738 of 2021
5. The 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020 is the 1st
petitioner. The writ petition has been filed along with three others
and the 3rd respondent is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020.
Respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition are two other persons, who
are said to have encroached into the alleged public road. Ext.P1
produced in the writ petition is a complaint dated 9.9.2015
submitted by the 1st petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2 is
the report of the Taluk Surveyor showing that there is encroachment
on the road. Ext.P3 is the resolution dated 22.9.2018 of the 1 st
respondent Panchayat wherein it was decided to proceed to remove
the encroachment. Ext.P4 is the notice dated 13.2.2019 issued by
the 2nd respondent to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020.
Ext.P5 is another notice directing removal of the branches of the
trees which are hanging over the pathway. The contentions raised in
the counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020 have been recited
in the writ petition also. The prayer in the writ petition is for a
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give effect to Ext.P7 order by
initiating appropriate proceedings in terms of the 1996 Rules and to
remove the encroachments made by respondents 3 to 5 as seen
from Ext.P2 survey report. The petitioners have also filed I.A.No.1
of 2022 producing Exts.P11 and P12. Ext.P11 is the Government
Order dated 2.12.2005 and Ext.P12 is the circular dated 13.1.2010
issued by the Local Self Government Department regarding the way
the asset register is to be prepared.
6. Heard Sri T.C.Suresh Menon, on behalf of the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.28421 of 202, who is the 3 rd respondent in W.P.
(C)No.14738 of 2021, Sri Sajan Varghese K. on behalf of the 4 th
respondent in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020, who is the 1 st petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.14378 of 2021, Sri Raj Pradeep on behalf of the
Panchayat and its Secretary and Sri B.S.Syamanthak, Government
Pleader on behalf of the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020.
7. Sri T.C.Suresh Menon submitted that in Ext.P6 judgment
this Court has clearly directed the Panchayat to consider the matter
after hearing all the parties and also keeping in mind the contention
of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020 that the Panchayat
does not have the competence to implement the resolution. Ext.P7
judgment is pointed out to state that this Court had directed both
sides to maintain the status quo with respect to the natural lie and
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
nature of the properties and that the discharge of water shall not be
increased or decreased by any human act until the suit is disposed
of or further orders are issued by the trial court. Admittedly, the
suit is still pending. It is contended that the road does not vest in
the Panchayat, and it is not included in the asset register. The
counsel for the Panchayat submitted that it is only an omission to
include in the asset register and going by the definition contained in
the Act and the Rules, any road which is used by the public will be a
road vested in the Panchayat. The parties to the suit will necessarily
be bound by the decision in the suit and this Court will not be
justified in making any observations regarding the contentions in the
suit, in these writ petitions. The only aspect which needs to be
considered in these writ petitions is the correctness of Ext.P10
produced in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020. Ext.P10 has been issued
based on directions issued by this Court, on a petition submitted by
the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.No.14738 of 2020. It only concludes
that action will be taken in accordance with the 1996 Rules relating
to eviction of encroachment. It is pointed out that pursuant to
Ext.P10, Ext.P11 notice has been issued to the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.28421 of 2020 and others. In the nature of the allegations
and counter allegations made and the fact that both the parties have
preferred complaints before the Panchayat, one regarding
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
obstruction to the road and the other regarding taking of water
through the road, it is only appropriate that these writ petitions are
disposed of directing the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020 to
submit his answer to the notice issued under the 1996 Rules within
10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
receipt of the explanation, the concerned authority of the Panchayat
shall take a decision on the same after hearing the petitioners in
both these cases, within 2 months from the date of receipt of the
explanation. It is open to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28421 of 2020
to raise the issue regarding the vesting of the road in the Panchayat
and the above issue shall also be considered while disposing of the
proceedings initiated under the 1996 Rules.
The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
dsn
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28421/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVEMBA DATED
19-05-2017
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH,
DATED 21-03-2018
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE
PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 22-09-2018
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER DATED
24-12-2019
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH DATED
16-1-2020
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
3762/2020 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DATED 24-2-2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P(C) NO.
1053/2020 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DATED 21-08-2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH A ROUGH SKETCH
DATED 19-06-2019
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF A PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE
HIGHHANDED ACTIVITY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
BY CUTTING OPEN THE CHAL INTO THE PATHWAY
DATED -NIL-
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 19-10-2020
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/01/2020
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED
24/03/2021.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
TALUK SURVEYOR ON 5/2/2016
Exhibit R4 B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/2/2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
PETITIONER.
Exhibit R4 C TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.261/2019
ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD.
Exhibit R4 D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/08/2019
PASSED IA NO.1494/2019 IN OS. NO.261/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
PALAKKAD.
Exhibit R4 E TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/12/2019
PASSED IN CMA NO.82/2019 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-V, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK
SURVEYOR, PALAKKAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE TALUK
SURVEYOR, PALAKKAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF BTR OF SURVEY NO.386/2012 OF
PERUVAMBA VILLAGE
EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE FMP OF THE AREA
EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.23 DATED
15.1.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14738/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
09.09.2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BY THE FIRST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY REPORT DATED
09.02.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE TALUK
SURVEYOR, PALAKKAD TO THE ADDITIONAL
TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 17/17
TAKEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH
IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 22.09.2018.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.02.2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.06.2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
24.02.2020 PASSED IN WPC NO. 3762/2020 ON
THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2020
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD SKETCH OF SURVEY
NO 386 OF PERUVEMBA VILLAGE
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.6.2019
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENT
NO.3
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.7.2018
ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PPPERUVEMBA
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.363/2005/LSGD
DATED 2/12/2005
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 13/1/2010
ISSUED BY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (DB)
DEPARTMENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPYOF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVEMBA VILLAGE,
W.P.(C)Nos.28421/2020
DATED 19.05.2017
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LIEN
CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF A PHOTOGRAPHH OF THE PATHWAY
IN QUESTION.
