Bpcl Kochi Refinery Officers ... vs Thripunithura Municipality
2023 Latest Caselaw 6673 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
    TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 22766 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

           BPCL KOCHI REFINERY OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE
           CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD
           NO. E-1190,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 301,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
           BY ADVS.
                  SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
                  SRI.ARJUN SANTHOSH
                  SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY
           THRIPUNITHURA- 682 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
    2      THE SECRETARY
           THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA- 682 301
    3      THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
           FORT KOCHI- 682 001
    4      DR. KUNAL VISWAM
           NADEPPALLY HOUSE, THRIPUNITHURA- 682 301
           BY ADVS.
                SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY
                SHRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SC, TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY
                SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.HANIL KUMAR
                SMT.M.SANTHY
                SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) 22766/2016               :2:


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a society registered under the Kerala

Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The members of the society

are the officers of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

(BPCL - Kochi Refinery). The society decided to construct

and provide houses to its members and purchased 138 cents

of land situated in a residential zone, in the year 2012. It is

stated that 42 cents of the aforesaid property is 'purayidom'

and the remaining 96 cents was reclaimed 5 years prior to

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

(the 'Wetland Act', for short) by the previous owners. Ext. P2

certificate of the Village Officer and Ext. P3 extract of the

Data Bank would show that the land was converted prior to

the year 2008. When the petitioner approached the

Municipality for building permit, the petitioner was required

to obtain permission under the Wetland Act. The petitioner,

therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)

No.3033/2013 and this Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, directed W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :3:

the Municipality to consider the application for building

permit, in accordance with the law and in terms of the

decision of this Court in Mohammed Abdul Basheer v.

State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 86]. Accordingly, the

Municipality issued Ext.P6 building permit for construction of

a multi-storied residential complex having 84 residential flats

in 14 floors as against the petitioner's application to construct

120 flats in 20 floors.

2. When the petitioner started construction in

accordance with Ext.P6 building permit, the 4 th respondent

and other local residents approached this Court by filing W.P.

(C)No.10547/2014 contending that the land is paddy field.

No interim order was granted in the said writ petition staying

the construction and the petitioner proceeded with the

construction as per Ext.P6 building permit. When the police

interfered with the construction, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)

No.11294/2014 and this Court, by interim order dated

29.04.2014, recorded the submission of the police that they W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :4:

are not intending to interfere with the construction activities.

Meanwhile, the Government increased the Floor Area Ratio

(FAR) from 2 to 4 and the petitioner, in order to cater to the

requirements of its members, submitted an application for

revised building permit before the Municipality to construct

105 apartments in 20 floors with FAR less than 3. Since the

said application was not considered by the Municipality, the

petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.25429/2014. The above 3 writ

petitions were disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment. The

petitioner contends that, in Ext.P10, this Court held that the

property will not fall within the definition of paddy or wetland

as defined under the Wetland Act. This Court further held

that there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the 4 th

respondent and others and in case they have a case that the

property in which the construction is going on is to be treated

as paddy land, their remedy is to approach the Local Level

Monitoring Committee (LLMC). The Municipality was

directed to consider the application of the petitioner for W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :5:

revised building permit. The petitioner has obtained

necessary permission from the Pollution Control Board, the

Senior Town Planner and the Department of Fire for

construction of the apartments as per the revised application.

The 4th respondent did not approach the LLMC on the basis of

the observation in Ext. P10. However, while the application

for revised building permit was pending consideration before

the Municipality, the 3rd respondent, the Revenue Divisional

Officer, issued Ext.P15 notice based on a complaint of the 4 th

respondent stating that the construction carried out by the

petitioner is causing nuisance to the neighbours and that the

construction is being carried out in paddy land. The

petitioner resisted the complaint stating that in the light of

Ext.P10 judgment, the issues raised in the complaint of the 4 th

respondent cannot be re-agitated before the 3 rd respondent.

However, the 3rd respondent, by Ext.P17 order, held that the

property covered by Exts.P2 and P3 is classified as paddy

land in BTR and converted land in the Data Bank and will W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :6:

come within the purview of the Wetland Act and Ext.P6

building permit granted without the order of the RDO under

clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is not proper

and directed the Director of Urban Affairs to recall the

permit. The District Collector was also asked to take action

under Section 13 of the Wetland Act and disciplinary

proceedings were recommended to be initiated against the

Village Officer and Agricultural Officer. Pursuant to Ext.P17,

the Municipality issued Ext.P18 order stating that in the light

of Ext.P17 order of the RDO, the revised building permit

cannot be granted. The petitioner challenges Ext.P17

contending that the same is passed in total defiance to

Ext.P10 judgment passed by this Court wherein this Court,

while dismissing W.P.(C)No.10547/2014 filed by the 4 th

respondent, held that the property covered by Exts.P2 and P3

will not fall within the definition of paddy or wetland. Ext. P18

order issued by the 2nd respondent based on Ext. P7 is also

impugned. The petitioner has also sought for direction to W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :7:

respondents 1 and 2 to grant revised building permit applied

for under Ext. P11.

3. This Court, by order dated 07.07.2016, has stayed the

operation of Ext.P17 until further orders.

4. In compliance with the directions of this Court in Ext.

P10 judgment, the Municipality issued Ext. P23 revised

permit for construction of 105 apartments in 18 floors. While

so, when the construction of the building was completed as

per the revised building permit and the interior work was

going on, the District Collector passed Ext. P24 order taking

further action on the basis of the recommendation of the RDO

in Ext. P17 order. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 7140 of

2018 challenging Ext. P24 and this Court stayed the

operation of Ext. P24. When the petitioner initiated contempt

proceedings against the District Collector and the 4 th

respondent, Ext. P24 was cancelled by the District Collector

by Ext. P27 order. The 4th respondent tendered unconditional

apology for not disclosing the earlier orders of the Court he W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :8:

suffered before the District Collector and the Contempt case

was closed accepting the apology. W.P. (C) No. 7140 of 2018

was later closed on the basis of Ext. P27.

5. This Court, taking note of the fact that the

construction of the building has been completed and

occupancy certificate has been issued, passed an order on

02.07.2019 directing respondents 1 and 2 to provisionally

number the apartments constructed by the petitioner as per

Ext. P23.

6. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating

that as per Ext. R4 (a) report of the Village Officer, the

property in question is 'nilam' and the property will fall within

the limits of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent

wherein it is stated that Ext. P17 order has been passed

pursuant to the complaint of the 4th respondent, referred to in

Ext. P15. It is stated that the RDO found that the property

comprised in Survey No. 1381 of Nadama village is classified W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :9:

as paddy land in revenue records and therefore, permission

under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order or

Section 27 A of the Wetland Act was necessary and there is

no irregularity or illegality in Ext. P17 order.

8. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit

filed by the 3rd respondent pointing out that Ext. P17 order

has been issued by the RDO without considering Ext. P10

judgment of this Court to which the 4th respondent and the

RDO were parties. The petitioner relies on the entry in Ext.

P3 Data Bank to contend that the land was converted 5 years

prior to its publication and that Section 27A applies only in

respect of conversions made after the introduction of the

amendment w.e.f 30.12.2017.

9. Heard Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the Municipality

and Sri.Hanil Kumar, the learned Government Pleader.

10. Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner submits that in view of the specific finding of this W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :10:

Court in Ext. P10 judgment that the property of the petitioner

in Sy. No.1381 will not fall within the definition of paddy or

wet land as defined in Act 28 of 2008, Ext. P17 order of the

RDO cannot be sustained. It is also contended by the leaned

senior counsel that W.P.(C) No. 10547/2014 is filed by the 4 th

respondent and others alleging that the petitioner reclaimed

paddy land in contravention of the Wetland Act and started

construction. However, this Court, by Ext. P10 judgment,

dismissed the said writ petition on finding that the property

will not fall within the definition of paddy or wetland as

defined under the Wetland Act and the 4 th respondent cannot,

thereafter, re-agitate the issue before the RDO and the RDO

cannot pass Ext. P17 order in total disregard to the findings

in Ext. P10 judgment.

11. Sri. Hanil Kumar, the learned Government Pleader,

on the other hand, would contend that Ext. P17 order has

been passed based on the entries in the revenue records.

12. In the year 2012, when the petitioner approached W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :11:

the Municipality for building permit, they required the

petitioner to obtain permission under the Wetland Act. The

petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P.

(C)No.3033/2013 contending that no portion of the property

is remaining as wetland and no paddy cultivation was there in

the property or in the nearby properties and produced Ext.P2

certificate of the village officer certifying that the property

was converted much prior to the commencement of the

Wetland Act. The petitioner also relied on the decision of this

Court in Mohammed Abdul Basheer (supra) wherein this

Court held that, if the land in question was converted prior to

the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wet Land Act, 2008, the property in question cannot be

described as 'paddy field' or 'wet land' coming within the

purview of the said Act and the question regarding grant of

building permit need be decided taking into consideration of

the ground reality existing. This Court, after hearing both

sides, found that the application of the petitioner for building W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :12:

permit has to be considered and dealt with in the manner as

specified in Mohammed Abdul Basheer (supra). It was

after taking into account the factors mentioned in

Mohammed Abdul Basheer (supra) that the Municipality

issued Ext.P6 building permit.

13. When the construction progressed in accordance

with Ext. P6 permit, the 4 th respondent and certain other

residents filed W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 to restrain the

petitioner from proceeding with the construction and to

direct the District Collector to conduct an enquiry in respect

of the permissions, if any, obtained by the petitioner for doing

construction activities in Sy No. 1381 of Nadama Village. The

said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by Ext. P10

judgment. In the nature of the controversies, it will be

apposite to extract the full judgment which reads as follows:

"The petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.11294/2014 & 25429/2014 is one and the same. The petitioner is a house construction society which undertakes construction works on behalf of its members. In W.P.(C) No.11294/2014, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent therein not to interfere with the construction of the residential flat. In W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :13:

No.25429/2014, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent Municipality to consider their revised application for building permit.

2. W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 is filed by the petitioners alleging that the petitioner in W.P.(C)Nos.25429/2014 & 11294/2014 reclaimed land in contravention of Act 28 of 2008. According to them, those lands are paddy land and construction is being undertaken illegally by contravening the provisions of the Act.

3. In W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 a statement has been filed by the 4th respondent-Village Officer. It is stated therein that the land comprised in Sy.Nos.1381 & 1382/2 are recorded as Nilam in the basic tax register. However, these properties are included in the Draft Data Bank and it is recorded as converted paddy land before five years ago and partially converted respectively. The other property situated in Sy Nos.1382/3 and 1390/1 are purayidam. In view of the above, the property will not fall within the definition of paddy or wet land as defined in Act 28 of 2008.

4. If the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 have a case that the property in which the construction is going on is to be treated as paddy land, their remedy is to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee. However, as per the statement of the village officer, the property is not classified as paddy land. Hence, I do not find any merit in W.P.(C) No.10547/2014.

5. W.P.(C) No.25429/2014 is filed on account of the pendency of W.P.(C) No.10547/2014. In view of the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.10547/2014, the impugned orders in W.P.(C)No.25429/2014 & 11294/2014 are set aside. There shall be a direction to the first respondent-Municipality in W.P.(C) No.25429/2014 to reconsider the petitioner's revised application in accordance with law. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) No.10547/2014 is dismissed and W.P.(C) Nos.11294/2014 & 25429/2014 are allowed."

                                               (underling supplied)
 W.P.(C) 22766/2016           :14:

14. As submitted by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner, there is a specific finding in Ext. P10 judgment

that the aforesaid property of the petitioner will not fall

within the definition of paddy or wet land as defined in Act 28

of 2008. The contention of the 4 th respondent that the lands

are paddy lands and petitioner reclaimed the lands in

contravention of the Wetland Act was negatived by this Court

and the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent was dismissed

and the judgment has attained finality.

15. The 4th respondent, without mentioning Ext. P10

judgment, approached the RDO alleging that the petitioner

has illegally reclaimed paddy land and is constructing flat in

Sy. Nos. 1381 and 1382 leading to water logging in the area.

Though the petitioner brought Ext. P10 judgment to the

notice of the RDO, the RDO passed Ext. P17 order holding

that the property comprised in Survey No. 1381 of Nadama

village is classified as paddy land in revenue records and W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :15:

therefore, permission under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land

Utilisation Order or Section 27 A of the Wetland Act was

necessary and directed the Director of Urban affairs to recall

the permit and further directed the District Collector to take

action under Section 13 of the Wetland Act.

16. In Ext. P10 judgment, the learned Judge, after

considering the statement of the village officer that the

property is not classified as paddy land, found that the

property comprised in Survey No. 1381 will not fall within the

definition of paddy or wet land as defined in Act 28 of 2008.

The contention of the 4th respondent and others that the lands

are paddy lands and petitioner reclaimed the lands in

contravention of the Wetland Act was negatived by this Court

and the writ petition was dismissed. The finding in Ext. P10

judgment has become final. The RDO is bound by the findings

of this Court in Ext. P10 judgment. The RDO and the 4th

respondent were parties to Ext. P10 judgment and they could

have challenged the same in appeal or could have sought for W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :16:

a review of the judgment. Until the judgment is set aside in

appeal or recalled by this Court, it remains to be a good and

valid judgment and the findings therein are binding on them.

The 3rd respondent could not himself sit in appeal over it.

Ext. P17 order contrary to the findings in Ext. P10 judgment

cannot be sustained. When the contention of the 4th

respondent that the lands are paddy lands and petitioner

reclaimed the lands in contravention of the Wetland Act was

rejected by this Court by Ext. P10 judgment, the RDO should

not have entertained the complaint of the 4th respondent and

entered findings contrary to the findings therein, as if the

said authority is sitting in appeal over Ext. P10 judgment. Ext.

P17 is, accordingly, set aside.

17. During the pendency of the writ petition, Ext. P23

revised building permit has been issued by the Municipality.

It is already recorded that the construction of the building

has been completed pursuant to Ext. P23 and Ext. P30

occupancy certificate has also been issued to the occupants of W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :17:

the building. This Court, by order dated 02.07.2019, had

directed respondents 1 and 2 to provisionally number the

apartments (105), constructed by the petitioner as per Ext.

P23. It is stated that the apartment owners have formed their

association to meet the statutory requirements. It is also

submitted that land tax due to the Revenue Department has

been paid and the tax due to the Municipality for each

apartments is being paid. The provisional building number

allotted to the apartments pursuant to the order of this Court

dated 02.07.2019 shall be made absolute by allotting regular

building numbers by the respondents 1 and 2 by formal

proceedings issued in that regard within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

                      MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
                              JUDGE
 W.P.(C) 22766/2016               :18:


                     APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22766/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1                    TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTIES

PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER NADAMA ON 16-07-2012 P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO 2227/10 DATED 17-03-2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO PW.4/11273/10 DATED 17-08-2011 ALONG WITH RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK NOTIFIED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 31-01-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05-04-2013 IN W.P (C) NO 3033/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT VIDE NO BA 231/12-13 DATED 7.12.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 9.04.2013 IN W.P.© NO.10547/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-04-2014 IN W.P(C) NO 11294/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-09-

2014 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA.

P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2014 IN W.P.(C)NO.25429/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED APPLICATION DATED 05-01-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/RO-EKM/EKM/ICE-23/13 DATED 22-07-2013 OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL NO D/277/15/K. DIS DATED 23-06-2015 OF SENIOR TOWN PLANNER P14 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRE AND SAFETY CLEARANCE W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :19:

CERTIFICATE NO. F2-6467/15 DATED 19-05-2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO K2-1052/16 DATED 05-04-2016 WITH THE INCOMPLETE COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 18-04-2016 P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO K2-1052/16/K.DIS DATED 10-06-2016 COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER ON 29-06-2016 P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22-06-

2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER P19 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30-06-

2016 ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY P20 TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM P21 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE VIDE NO.S1-

11373/2012 DATED 13.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER AFTER SURVEY.

P22 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE VIDE NO.S7-1356/15 DATED 4.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER AFTER RE-SURVEY.

P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED BUILDING PERMIT VIDE NO.BA-231/12-13 DATED 22.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.56544/16/L10/K.DIS DATED 07.02.2018 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.7140/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.7140/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

P27 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.56544/16/L10/K.DIS DATED 05.05.2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

P28 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN CONT.CASE NO.549/2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 11.07.2018.

 W.P.(C) 22766/2016             :20:

P29                  TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2018

IN CONT.CASE NO.549/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

P30 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 23.10.2018 ISSUED BY RULE 22(3) OF THE KERALA MUNICIPAL BUILDING RULES.

P31 TRUE COPY OF THE FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE.

P32 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT VIDE NO.PP-01/17 DATED 27.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P33 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL VIDE NO.PP-01/17 DATED 10.11.2017 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON 13.11.2017.

P34 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.PW-4/BA/231/12-13 DATED 27.07.2018 ALONG WITH ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT.

P35 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT VIDE NO.PP-01/18 DATED 01.08.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

P36 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE NO.BSAP/2018/AUG-I/3080 DATED 01.08.2018 OF THE PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT.

P37 TRUE COPY OF THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT THE TIME OF 2018 FLOOD DISASTER THROUGHOUT THE STATE SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

P38 TRUE COPY OF THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING CONSTRUCTION OF MPS BUILDERS AND NEARBY FLATS P39 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE WITH REGARD TO THE BUILDING NUMBERS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 30-07-209 P40 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 23.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT P41 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS (TYPICAL FOR EACH TYPE) DATED 14/10/2019 PAID FOR EACH CATEGORY OF APARTMENTS TOTALING THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT P42 COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :21:

27/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT P43 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.EKM/TC/211/2020 DATED 08/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN TO PETRO PALACE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

P44 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION VIDE NO.EKM/TC/211/2020 DT. 08.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES.

P45 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-

2088/214 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.

P45(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL07020503789/2022 DATED 18.03.2022 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.

P45(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-

20881/21 27 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.

P45(C) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL07020504516/2022 DATED 31.03.2022 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.

P45 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE No.B6-

20881/21 dated 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.

P45 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL07020504524/2022 DATED 31.03.2022 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER P45 (F) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-

20881/21 68 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.

P45 (G) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL07020504536/2022 DATED 31.03.2022 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.

P45 (H) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-

20881/21 78 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR P45 (I) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL07020504532/2022 DATED 31.03.2022 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.

P45 (J) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL07020504537/2022 DATED 31.03.2022 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER P45 (K) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE VIDE NO.B6-

20881/21 102 DATED 07.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE W.P.(C) 22766/2016 :22:

KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR P45 (L) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL07020503774/2022 DATED 18.03.2022 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE APARTMENT OWNER.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA DATED 02.03.2016 EXT.R4A ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER.

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AS AVAILABLE IN GOOGLE EARTH SHOWING THE ORIGINAL NATURE OF EXT.R4A THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2005, 2006 & 2008.

THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S EXT.R4B PROPERTY AND THAT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN THE YEAR 2011.

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND EXT.R4C THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OF THE YEAR 2015 AND 2016 AS AVAILABLE IN GOOGLE EARTH.

PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ORIGINAL NATURE OF LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER EARLIER AND EXT.R4D THAT OF THE PRESENT CONDITION AND ALSO THAT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING WATER LOGGING IN THE EXT.R4E PROPERTY OF 4TH RESPONDENT.

TRUE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NEWS ITEM EXT.R4F PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI NEWS PAPER DATED 7.09.2017.

EXHIBIT R3A THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT.

spc/