Jayaprakash vs The District Geologist
2023 Latest Caselaw 5502 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 12TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                WP(C) NO. 34257 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

    1    MOHANDAS P.D
         AGED 57 YEARS
         S/O LATE DIVAKARAN, AGED 57 YEARS,
         PATHIKALAYIL, MAILATTUMPARA PEECHI P.O.,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 653.

         BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
         OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
         MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBOOKKAVU,
         THRISSUR, 680 020.

    2    THE TAHSILDAR, (LAND RECORDS),
         TALUK OFFICE, PALACE ROAD,THRISSUR-680 020.

    3    THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
         PEECHI FOREST STATION, PEECHI P.O.,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 653.

    4    THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
         PEECHI VILLAGE PEECHI P.O.,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 653

         SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL GP(FOREST)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.05.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).35502/2022,
36460/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases
                                 :2:




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 12TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 35502 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 54 YEARS
           S/O.DIVAKARAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
           PATHIKALAYIL HOUSE, MYLATTUPARA,
           PEECHI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 653
           REPRESENTD BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
           RAMESH, S/O DIVAKARAN,
           AGED 58 YEARS, PATHIKALAYIL HOUSE
           MYLATTUPARA, PEECHI.P.O,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT-680653

           BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
           OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
           MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBOOKKAVU,
           THRISSUR, PIN-680 020.
    2      THE TAHSILDAR,(LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE,
           PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 020.
    3      THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
           PEECHI FOREST STATION, PEECHI.P.O,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680653.
    4      THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
           PEECHI VILLAGE, PEECHI.P.O,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680653.

           SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL GP(FOREST)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.05.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).34257/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases
                                 :3:




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 12TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 36460 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           POULY GEORGE
           PALATHUNGAL HOUSE, MANIMARUTHUCHAL,
           OONNUKAL, NERIAMANGALAM,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686693

           BY ADV BINU PAUL


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
           DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
           CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
    2      RANGE FOREST OFFICER
           KOTHAMANGALAM RANGE,
           ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686693

           SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL GP(FOREST)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.05.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).34257/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases
                                 :4:




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 12TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 37996 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           KRISHNANKUTTY
           AGED 70 YEARS
           S/O. NARAYANAN, KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
           ASSARIKKAD (PO), PEECHI,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 653.

           BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
           OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
           MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBOOKKAVU,
           THRISSUR, PIN - 680 020.
    2      THE TAHSILDAR(LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE,
           PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR PIN - 680 020.
    3      THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
           PEECHI FOREST STATION, PEECHI P.O.,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 653.
    4      THE VILLAGE OFFICER
           PEECHI VILLAGE, PEECHI P.O.,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 653.

           SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL GP(FOREST)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.05.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).34257/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases
                                 :5:




                                                                 CR



                           N. NAGARESH, J.

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
               W.P.(C) Nos.34257, 35502, 36460
                       and 37996 of 2022

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                 Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2023


                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

These writ petitions raise a common question of

law almost on similar facts. Hence, they are heard together

and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. For convenience, facts of the case in W.P.(C)

No.34257 of 2022 are narrated here. Facts in other cases

are almost identical. The petitioner is in ownership and

possession of 0.297 Hectares of land situated in Peechi

Village of Thrissur Taluk. The petitioner wanted to construct W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

a residential building on the property. The Grama Panchayat,

after verification, granted Ext.P3 Building Permit.

3. For the purpose of construction, ordinary earth

has to be removed from the property. The Building Plan

approved by the Panchayat indicated the quantity of ordinary

earth to be removed for facilitating the construction. The

ordinary earth so removed is to be transported out. Ordinary

earth being a minor mineral, the petitioner requires Mineral

Transit Passes to be issued by the 1 st respondent-District

Geologist.

4. The District Geologist, instead of issuing Mineral

Transit Passes, issued Ext.P5 letter dated 23.02.2022 to the

Range Forest Officer asking for his opinion as to whether the

land of the petitioner being originally one assigned under the

Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of

Forest Lands Prior to 01.01.1977) Special Rules, 1993

(hereinafter referred to as "the Special Rules, 1993" for

brevity) and since the Possession Certificate also indicated

that it is an 'assigned land', can permission be granted to W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

remove and transport out earth from the land for construction

of residential building.

5. According to the petitioner, the Forest Range

Officer did not respond to the communication sent by the

District Geologist and the District Geologist is refusing to

issue Mineral Transit Passes without the concurrence of the

Forest Range Officer. According to the petitioner, the District

Geologist, in issuing Mineral Transit Passes, is exercising a

statutory power and cannot exercise that power based on the

opinion of the Forest Range Officer. The petitioner would

argue that this Court, in Exts.P7 to P9 judgments, has held

that ordinary earth can be permitted to be removed and

transported for the purpose of construction of residential

houses.

6. The Special Government Pleader (Forests)

resisted the writ petitions filing Statements/Counter Affidavits.

On behalf of the Range Forest Officer, it is submitted that the

assignment of the forest land is made under Rule 9(3) of

Kerala Land Assignment Rules (Regularisation of W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

Occupations of Forest Lands Prior to 01.01.1977) Special

Rule 1993. The land was formerly part of Paravattanimala

Notified Reserve. As per Rule 3 of the rules the purpose of

assignment is for personal cultivation, house construction or

shop room construction. So the land cannot be used for any

other purpose. The petitioner is entitled to construct building

in the property but under the guise of house construction, the

soil of the forest land cannot be removed from the said land.

The petitioner obtained the aforesaid land falling under

Survey Number.3385/P of Peechi Village through a partition

deed among his siblings and registered as Document

No.1949 of 2014 of S.R.O. Ollukkara dated 20.05.2014. The

land was formerly forest land and it was actually assigned as

part of regularization of the occupation of forest land. The

petitioner has not submitted any application before the

Divisional Forest Officer, Thrissur or any other subordinate

forest officers for the removal of earth from his forest

assigned land.

W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

7. The petitioner's forest assigned land is located at

the right side of Poolachodu-Mayilattumpara Road. This land

is situated in 2 meters height from the road. The land is just

200 meters away from Mayilatumpara forest area of

Paravattanimala Notified Reserve. Soil excavation from the

land would affect climatic and edaphic factors of the area.

The Patta of the land attached by the petitioner as Ext.P6

with the petition is the same as the Patta annexed as Ext.P6

in W.P.(C) No.35502 of 2022 filed by Jayaprakash before

this Court for similar matter. The petitioner of this petition and

the petitioner, Jayaprakash of W.P.(C) No.35502 of 2022 are

brothers and received the property through a partition deed

as Document No.1949 of 2014 of S.R.O. Ollukkara dated

20.05.2014. After perusal of the patta annexed as Ext.P6 of

both Writ petitions, it is discernable that a total of 0.2833

Hectares of forest land was assigned to Chellamma (Mother

of the petitioner) W/o Late Divakaran, Pathikalayil House,

Peechi.P.O on 17.05.06 by Special Tahsildar (Land

Assignment), Trichur. As per the land tax receipts annexed W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

as Ext.P2 of the petitions of Jayaprakash and Mohandas,

they are now in possession of 0.5936 Hectares of land. It can

be assumed that the petitioners are in illegal possession of

0.3103 Hectares forest land. It can also be seen that there is

no explanation in the petition regarding this excess land held

by the petitioners. It is clear from the documents annexed by

the petitioners before this Court with their petitions that they

are in possession of more land than the land being assigned

by the authority and it can be inferred that such excess land

held by the petitioners is illegal. It is only through a detailed

investigation that it can be decided to which category the

excess land held by the petitioners belong. In that case, it

can be seen that the petitioners have sought removal of soil

from the land which is yet to be ascertained into which

category the total area of land falls. It is also being

investigated whether the petitioners are behind the soil mafia

group, which sells illegally excavated soil in patta and other

land areas.

W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

8. The Patta and other land documents along with

the petition also certifies that this land was part of a forest

ecosystem. Then the soil excavated at the site has the

inherent biological properties of the forest ecosystem with

high levels of humus. It can be removed from the site only

with the prior permission of the Forest Department. It is not

justifiable to remove forest soil seemingly to a place without

proper monitoring and environmental benefits. Till date, the

petitioner has not applied to the forest department for

permission to remove the soil from the assigned forest land.

Permission cannot be granted to remove forest soil from

assigned forest land even if the petitioner makes an

application. Only soil levelling is permitted on the site for

erecting the house and soil removal is not permitted. The

respondent is unable to give permission to remove forest soil

from the forest assigned land even if the petitioner makes an

application, only soil levelling is allowed at the site where the

house is to be built and no soil removal can be allowed. W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader

(Forests) appearing for the respondents.

10. The petitioners hold properties in Peechi Village of

Thrissur Taluk and in Neriamangalam Village in

Kothamangalam Taluk. The properties were originally

assigned under the Special Rules, 1993. The petitioners

want to construct residential houses in their respective land

holdings and have obtained Building Permits and Approved

Plans from the Local Self Government Institutions.

11. The Building Permits / Approved Plans would

indicate that a certain amount of red earth has to be

excavated for the purpose of construction of buildings. The

Grama Panchayats concerned have quantified and indicated

the quantum of earth to be excavated, in the Building Permit /

Approved Plan. The petitioners desire to transport red earth /

ordinary earth so excavated. The Kerala Minor Mineral

Concession Rules, 2015 and the Kerala Minerals (Prevention

of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

make it a legal requirement to obtain Mineral Transit Passes

from the Geologist for transportation of ordinary earth which

is a minor mineral.

12. When the petitioners submitted applications for

issuance of Mineral Transit Passes, the Geologist instead of

considering the applications on merits, has sought opinion of

Range Forest Officer on the permissibility of issuing passes,

for the reason that in the Possession Certificates produced

by the petitioners, there is an endorsement that the pieces of

land in question are 'assigned'. It is aggrieved by the refusal

on the part of the Geologist that the petitioners have

approached this Court filing the writ petitions.

13. The Range Forest Officer is resisting the writ

petitions and submits that since the land was originally

assigned under the Special Rules, 1993, the petitioners are

bound by the conditions on which the land was originally

assigned. The soil excavated at the site has the inherent

biological properties of the Forest ecosystem with high levels

of humus. It can be removed from the site only with the prior W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

permission of the Forest Department. It is not justifiable to

remove forest soil seemingly to a place without proper

monitoring and environmental benefits.

14. The Range Forest Officer contends that the

petitioners have not submitted any application to the Forest

Department seeking permission to remove soil from the

assigned forest land. The Range Forest Officer would further

state that even if application is submitted, permission cannot

be granted. Only soil levelling is permitted on the site for

erecting the house, soil removal is not permitted.

15. The Range Forest Officer would further urge that

the status of land assigned under the Special Rules, 1993

remains as Forest Land and the provisions of Section 2 of

the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is applicable to the said

land. Any clearing of land for non-forestry purpose will be

treated as violation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation

Act, 1980. The removal of soil from the land for building

construction would entail removal of trees also, which would

clearly go against the conditions of assignment. W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

16. As regards the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.34257

and 35502 of 2022, the Range Forest Officer submitted that

as per the land tax receipts produced by them, they are

holding land in excess of what was originally assigned and

hence it is to be assumed that they are in illegal possession

of land.

17. The applicability of Forest Conservation Act, 1980

to the forest lands occupied by private individuals prior to

01.01.1997 came up for consideration before a Full Bench of

this Court in Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala

and others [AIR 2000 Ker 131]. The constitutional validity of

the Special Rules, 1993 was also considered by the Full

Bench. The Full Bench of this Court, after an elaborate

consideration of the history of the Special Rules, 1993 and

other legal materials, held that the provisions contained in

the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 have no retrospective

operation and they operate only prospectively. This Court

further held that the Special Rules, 1993 are legal and valid.

Therefore, the Range Forest Officer cannot be heard to W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

contend that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 would come

in the way of petitioners constructing residential homes in

their properties which were originally assigned under the

Special Rules, 1993.

18. The further reason extended by the Range Forest

Officer for objecting to the excavation and removal of

ordinary earth for house construction is that such excavation

and removal would violate conditions of assignment of forest

land. Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 1993 provides that lands

under the Rules may be assigned on Registry for purpose of

personal cultivation or for house sites or for shop sites as the

case may be.

19. Ext.P6 Pattayam/assignment contains ten

conditions of assignment. English translation of those

conditions as contained in paragraph 30 of the Division

Bench judgment of this Court in One Earth One Life v.

Ministry of Environment and Forests and Others [2018

(3) KLT 683] is as follows:

1. The full right overall the trees within the grant and specified in the schedule vests in the W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

Government Forest Dept. and the assignee is bound to take care of all trees standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may come into existence subsequent to it.

2. The assignee is bound to afford all facilities to the officers of Govt. in the matter of inspecting the land periodically for checking the trees referred to in condition (1) above and removing them if necessary.

3. Alienation of the assigned land is strictly forbidden unless under the conditions of Rule 15 sub-rule (2) in the event of alienation in contravention of the provision of this sub-rule it shall be open to the Government for resume the land without payment of any compensation.

4. In the case of an assignee allowed to pay the cost in instalments, if the assignee fails to pay any instalment in time the grant shall be cancelled.

5. No fees shall be levied (collected) related to survey and demarcation.

6. No previous arrears (dues) of patta on the land shall be levied.

7. The existing and customary rights of the Government and the public in roads and paths, rivers, streams and channels running through or bounding the land and the right of Government to a share in the mines and quarries adjacent to the said land are reserved and are in no way affected by the grant. *(Clause 7 incorrectly translated as indicated below in Note A)

8. All established rights of way and benefits with respect to road/path/other easement rights shall be respected by the assignee.

9. The land revenue or any tax or fee levied in lieu thereof on the land will be liable to revision.

10. In the event of any violation of any rules or conditions on grant, the Govt. has the right to resume the land without any compensation.

*NOTE A:- The translation of the above clause 7 of the Malayalam document does not appear to be W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

correct and the actual clause as contained in the Malayalam version reads as follows:

പത ച നൽക ന ഭ മ യ ൽക ട റ ഡ, നടപ ത, പ ഴ, അര വ , വവളച ല കൾ എന വ കടന റപ വ കയ വ ങ ൽ അവ ഉപറയ ഗ ക നത ന ള ന ലവ ല ളത $ ക%ഴ വഴകപപക രമ ളത മ യ സർക ര നവ യ $ വപ ത ജനങള വടയ $ അധ ക രവ $ സമ%പഖന കള റലറക ക. കള റലറക ഉള സർക ര നവ പപറവശനധ ക രവ $ ന ലന ർത യ ട ളത $ അവവയ ന ർദ ഷ ഭമ പത വ ഒര ക ര വശ ല $ ബ ധ ക നത മല.

The English version does not appear to be the verbatim translation of clause 7 in Malayalam version. The Malayalam version does not refer to any right of the Government to a share in the quarries and mines, but refers to the 'right of access' referred by the Government to have access to the nearby mines or quarries through the assigned land.

The conditions of Patta do not in any manner prohibit

excavation or removal of ordinary earth by the assignee.

20. When Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 1993

categorically states that the assignment can be for personal

cultivation or for house sites and when the conditions of

Pattayam do not expressly or by implication prohibits

excavation and/or transportation of ordinary earth / red earth

for construction of houses, the respondents cannot contend

that the assignees under the Special Rules, 1993 have no W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

right to excavate and transport ordinary earth / red earth to

facilitate house construction in the assigned land.

21. The further defence of the respondents is that the

soil excavated at the site has the inherent biological

properties of the Forest ecosystem with high levels of humus

and hence soil can be removed only with the permission of

the Forest Department. High levels of humus quality cannot

by itself affect the right of a land owner to utilise his land

according to his requirements permissible under law and

under the terms of assignment. In the absence of any

statutory prohibition, restriction or regulation and in the

absence of any executive instruction having the force of

Article 162, Officers of the Forest Department cannot prevent

an assignee of the land under the Special Rules, 1993 from

constructing house and for that purpose excavate and

transport ordinary earth.

22. The respondents have a further argument that

some of the petitioners hold excess land than the extent

assigned under the Special Rules, 1993. The respondents' W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

assumption appears to be based on the extent of land

assigned under the Special Rules, 1993 and the extent

shown in the Possession Certificate. Based on the pleadings

in the writ petition, holding of excess land by any of the

petitioners, if at all they hold, cannot be concluded to be

illegal. And furthermore, that is not the reason based on

which the District Geologist has sought advice of the Forest

Department.

23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it has

to be concluded that the omission on the part of the District

Geologist in considering the applications of the petitioners for

issuance of Mineral Transit Passes for transportation of

ordinary earth is illegal and arbitrary. The District Geologist is

duty bound to consider the statutory applications for issuance

of Mineral Transit Passes submitted by the petitioners

without awaiting for any permission or approval from the

Range Forest Officer.

The writ petitions are therefore disposed of

directing the District Geologist concerned to consider the W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

applications submitted by the petitioners for Mineral Transit

Passes and issue passes to the petitioners if they are

otherwise eligible, within a period of one month. It is made

clear that this judgment will not restrain competent authorities

to proceed against the petitioners, if any of the petitioners

are holding excess forest land without the authority of law.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/02.05.2023 W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34257/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO1949 OF DATED 20-05-2014 OF S.R.O. OLLUKKARA Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RECEIPT DATED 11-10-2022 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.A3-

                     BA(220806)/2021    DATED     30-09-2021
                     ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF PANANCHERY
                     GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
Exhibit P4           TRUE   COPY  OF   THE   BUILDING   PLAN
                     APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.
Exhibit P5           TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-02-
                     2022.
Exhibit P6           TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA BEARING NO.B6-
                     2324/99 DATED 17-05-2006.
Exhibit P7           TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
                     30.03.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.7362 OF 2022
Exhibit P8           TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

10.05.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO. 4782 OF 2022.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.06.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.16226 OF 2022. W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35502/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1949 OF 2014 DATED 20-

05-2014 OF S.R.O. OLLUKKARA Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11-10-2022 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.A3-

                     BA(220806)/2021    DATED     30-09-2021
                     ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF PANANCHERY
                     GRAMA PANACHAYAT.
Exhibit P4           TRUE   COPY  OF   THE   BUILDING   PLAN
                     APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.
Exhibit P5           TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-02-
                     2022.
Exhibit P6           TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA BEARING NO.B6-
                     2324/99 DATED 17-05-2006.
Exhibit P7           TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
                     30.03.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.7362 OF 2022
Exhibit P8           TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

10.05.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO. 4782 OF 2022.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.06.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.16226 OF 2022. W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36460/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED 12.06.2001 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSAIGNMENT), KOTHAMANGALAM Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 22.10.2021 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH NO.323/21 DATED 20.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER; NERIAMANGALAM Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 20.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER; NERIAMANGALAM Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.95/2022 DATED 09.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER; NERIAMANGALAM Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.03.2022 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SECTION FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM SECTION DATED 06.05.2022 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 4782 OF 2022 DATED 10.05.2022 W.P.(C) No.34257/2022 & connected cases

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37996/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO. B4-4142/99 DATED 25.02.2003 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR UNIT NO.2, THRISSUR.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.

A3-BA(306595)/2022 DATED 28.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE PANANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND CUTTING DETAILS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.8.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.05.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO. 4782 OF 2022.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.06.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16226 OF 2022.