Kerala High Court
Ajith Kumar G vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 39886 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
V.VIDHU, AGED 78 YEARSKUNNATHU VEEDU, TC 76/2459,
VENPALAVOTTEM, ANAYARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695
029.
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALAREP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 388, FLOOR MAIN BLOCK,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
2 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A) PWD (SOUTHERN CIRCLE), FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 031.
3 ROAD FUND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T. C. 27/287, SPORTS COMPLEX,
CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM
-695033.
4 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD FUND DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, PROJECT DIVISIONAL OFFICE
(SMART CITY-KIIFB), TC 15/3039 (1), EAST PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. K V MANOJ KUMAR (KRFB)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).40362/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 40362 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 AJITH KUMAR GAGED 49 YEARSK G BHAVAN, TC 30/217,
NSSKRRA HOUSE NO.300, ANAYARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 029.
2 K.C. SASIDHARANARCHANA, TC 30/221, CIFKA 37, ANAYARA
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 029.
3 MANESH STC 93/468, ARCHANA, ANAYARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 029.
BY ADVS.V.VINAY
S.RAJEEV
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
SARATH K.P.
M.S.ANEER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 388, FLOOR MAIN BLOCK,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L.A)PWD (SOUTHERN CIRCLE), FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 031.
3 ROAD FUND DEVELOPMENT BOARDREPRESENTED BY TS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, T.C.27/287, SPORTS COMPLEX,
CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM 695
033.
4 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD FUND DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, PROJECT DIVISIONAL OFFICE
(SMART CITY-KIIFB), TC 15/3039 (1), EAST PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004.
SRI. K V MANOJ KUMAR (KRFB)
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).39886/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 4
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.39886/2022 and 40362/2022]
The petitioners in these writ petitions were in possession of certain
properties in Kadakampally village, which were the subject matter of
acquisition for the purpose of widening the Petta - Anayara- Oruvathilkotta
PWD Road under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . It is the case of the petitioners
that their properties were categorised under 'Category-A', but only an
amount at the rate of Rs. 19,79,213 (Rupees Nineteen lakhs Seventy-Nine
Thousand Two Hundred and Thirteen) per Are was awarded by the State.
As the issues arising for consideration are identical, these Writ Petitions
can be disposed of by a common judgment. The parties and the exhibits
referred to in this judgment are as they appear/are marked in W.P (C)No.
39886/2022 unless otherwise indicated.
2. It is the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 39886/2022 that an
extent of 1.48 Ares of his property was acquired, and he was awarded an
amount of Rs.73,38,765 (Rupees Seventy-Three Lakhs Thirty-Eight
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 5
Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-Five) only, despite a valid claim for
higher compensation. It is the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No.
40362/2022 that an extent of 0.53 Ares of property was acquired from the
1st petitioner, and he was awarded an amount of Rs.28,22,200 (Rupees
Twenty-Eight lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand and Two Hundred), and from
the 2nd petitioner, an extent of 0.39 Ares of property was acquired and he
was awarded only a total amount of Rs.21,17,168 (Rupees Twenty-One
Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Eight) and from the
3rd petitioner an extent of 0.12 Ares of property was acquired and he was
awarded only a total amount of Rs.6,10,029 (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten
Thousand and Twenty-Nine). It is the case of petitioners in both these writ
petitions that they are entitled to a higher compensation at a rate of more
than 25 lakhs per cent and that the compensation fixed is grossly
inadequate and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioner in WP(C) No. 39886 of 2022 was not provided an opportunity to
be heard before fixing the land value. It is submitted that the petitioner was
not provided with a meeting link to attend the meeting held online, and
thereby, he was denied an opportunity of hearing while fixing the value of
the land. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 6
27976/2021 before this Court, and this court directed the competent
authorities to hear the petitioner and to consider the representations and
documents produced/adduced by the petitioner and to take a decision as
per the provisions of section 26 of the Act. It is submitted that pursuant to
the judgment in the aforesaid case, notice was issued by an incompetent
authority. It is submitted that the petitioner again approached this court
through W.P.(C) No. 8886/2022, and this court directed the Special
Tahsildar (LA) to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act
and directed the petitioner to produce all documents to substantiate his
claim for higher value. It is submitted that the petitioner's son thereafter
produced a written statement and documents to prove title and ownership
of the land. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of this court in Shailaja v State of Kerala and others,
2022 (1) KHC 173 to contend that the land owner has a right to be heard
by producing relevant documents and other materials. It is submitted that
the petitioner had made several representations before the 2 nd respondent
to afford a personal hearing in the matter, but the petitioner was not
provided with the opportunity to address his grievances. It is contended
that land value fixed without hearing the petitioner is violative of his
fundamental right to be heard. It is further submitted that the petitioners in
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 7
WP(C) No. 40362/2022 also preferred a writ petition, namely WP(C) No.
29693/2021, and that this court directed the authorities to hear the
petitioners and to act as per the provisions of Section 26 of the Act. It is
contended that the respondents failed to act as per the provisions of the
Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the observation
of Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v S. Babu and
others; 2018: KER: 28505 (LAA No.51/2014 and connected
cases) to contend that acquired properties are situated in a most
important commercial area and that the centage value fixed in that case by
the reference court was more than Rs.6.5 Lakhs per cent for an acquisition
notification in the year 2004 and more than Rs.10 Lakhs per cent for the
notification in the year 2008 and that the market value fixed for the land at
Pettah for the acquisition in the year 2008 was Rs.25,10,394 per Are. It is
contended that, in the present case, the market value fixed by the authority
is only at the rate of Rs.19,79,213 per Are for the year 2019. It is, therefore,
submitted that the petitioners are entitled to a higher market value than the
one fixed by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent
ought to have considered the judgment of this Court in S. Babu (supra)
while fixing the land value. It is further submitted that if the awards passed
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 8
in earlier acquisition proceedings are at a larger market value than one
fixed in the present case under section 26 (1) of the Act, then that higher
value with an appropriate annual increase in percentage of land value
should be adopted as the market value. The learned Counsel for the
petitioners also drew attention to Explanation 3 to section 26 of the Act. It
is contended that even though the said provision provides that the awards
passed in earlier acquisition proceedings shall not be taken into
consideration, it cannot be interpreted to mean that there is an absolute
exclusion of consideration of the earlier awards. It is contended that the
provision was incorporated to ensure that a lower amount to the detriment
of the claimant is not fixed by the authorities. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners further placed considerable reliance on the
judgment of this court in Santhakumar and Others v. State of
Kerala and Others, 2016 (3) KHC 757, which was affirmed in appeal
by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v
Santha V.R and others; W.A No.2020/2016. It is submitted that this
court, in the aforesaid judgments, has taken the view that it is obligatory on
the part of the District Collector to make an enquiry, adopting different
methods envisaged under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 26
of the Act, to fix the market value. It is contended that the expression
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 9
"whichever is higher" indicates that an enquiry is to be conducted by
adopting all methods contemplated under Section 26(1) of the Act and that
it is mandatory that the highest value is to be adopted. It is submitted that
the market value of each criterion under clauses (a) to (c) of section 26 of
the Act shall be explored, and the highest value must be taken as the market
value of the acquired property. It is submitted that the authorities have
failed to consider the criterion laid down in section 26(1)(c) of the Act. It is
also submitted that the 2nd respondent ought to have adopted the criterion
laid down as per the provisions contained in section 26(1)(c) of the Act,
with respect to the negotiated price between the State and the claimants, in
the absence of any such prevailing negotiated price fixed in any alternate
proceedings. It is contended that the fact that a review petition is pending
seeking a review of the judgment of the Division Bench in writ appeal,
Santha V.R (supra), is not a good reason to discard the law laid down
therein. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Reliance Industries Ltd. v Vijayan, 2022 (7) KHC 247 in support of
this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioners further placed
reliance on the judgment of this court in Krishna Kumar and Others v
District Bar Association, Pathanamthitta and Others, 2021 KHC
35 to contend that it has been held that Stamp duty value is not the Market
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 10
value of the land sought to be acquired and the authority will have to
conduct a fair and impartial enquiry to arrive at the just and fair Market
value of the property. It is further contended that the District Collector had
fixed a higher land value upon negotiation, and that shows that the land
value is higher than the one fixed by the 2 nd respondent. It is contended that
the 2nd respondent cannot pass an award that is lesser than what is granted
to the A-category property holders and approved by the State Level
Empowered Committee (SLEC) and that the awards passed by the 2 nd
respondent are, therefore, liable to be interfered with.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents, in reply, would submit that the contention of the petitioner in
WP(C) No. 39886/2022 that an opportunity to be heard was not given is
devoid of any merit. It is submitted that intimation with respect to an
online meeting was provided to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to
attend the same and thereafter, preferred W.P.(C) No. 27976/2021, stating
that the market value fixed for the land was grossly inadequate. It is
submitted that pursuant to the judgment of this court in the aforesaid writ
petition, notice was issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner again failed
to appear for the hearing, stating that an incompetent authority issued the
notice and that the District Collector should conduct the hearing. It is
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 11
submitted that the petitioner further preferred another writ petition as
W.P.(C) No. 8886/2022, and this Court directed the Special Tahsildar to
act strictly in terms of the Act and that the petitioner was directed to
produce all documents to substantiate his claim, in support of his claim for
a higher value for his property. It is submitted that similar directions were
given in WP(C) No. 29693/2021 filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.
40362/2022. It is submitted that petitioners in both these cases were
provided notices, including award enquiry notice under Section 21. It is
submitted that the documents to prove title and ownership of the
properties were submitted, but no documents or records other than
judgments in land acquisition appeals were produced by the petitioners to
claim a hike in the basic market value of the land. The learned Senior
Government Pleader referred to the statement filed in this Court on behalf
of the respondents and stated that the awards passed in these cases are
completely justified. It is submitted that the impugned awards do not suffer
from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting
interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that the market value of the lands
acquired was fixed as per the provisions of Section 26 of the Act. It is
submitted that the contention by the petitioners relying on Explanation 3 to
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 12
Section 26 of the Act is not tenable as it is clear from a reading of this
provision that while determining the market value, compensation for land
acquired on an earlier occasion shall not be taken into consideration. It is
submitted that the market value of the land was not fixed merely by
calculating the fair value of the land but after fixing the parameters and
criteria for categorising the land for acquisition so as to arrive at the correct
land value by following all the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the
contention of the petitioner that respondents have not considered the
criterion laid down under section 26 (1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. It is
submitted that section 26(1) (c) of the Act pertains to the determination of
the market value of land based on the amounts fixed as compensation in
the case of a negotiated purchase of lands similarly situated. It is submitted
that the provisions apply only in case of acquisition of lands for private
companies or for public-private partnership projects. It is contended that
when the lands were acquired for purposes other than for private
companies or for public-private partnership projects, Section 26(1) (c) of
the Act will not apply. It is contended that the requisitioning authority in
this case is the Kerala Road Fund Board (KRFB) which is part of the State
Public Works Department. It is submitted that the first requisition was
issued by the Executive Engineer - PWD (Roads), and then the work was
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 13
transferred to KRFB. It is contended that the decision in
Santhakumar(supra), which was upheld by the Division Bench in
Santha V.R (supra), do not go to the extent of holding that Section 26(1)
(c) of the Act will apply to the acquisition of land for purposes other than
those set out in the provision. It is further contended that the contention of
the petitioners that the 2nd respondent cannot pass an award that is lesser
than what is granted to the A-category property holders approved by SLEC
is totally baseless. It is submitted that the amount approved by SLEC is the
negotiated value, which includes not only the market value but also the
value for structure and improvements, 100% solatium, 12% additional
market value and a negotiated additional 17% increase in the value. It is
submitted that, in these cases, the basic value of land was fixed based on
the criteria set out in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 26,
and if the petitioners are in any manner aggrieved they should avail the
remedy of a reference under Section 64 of the Act.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official
respondents, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the
contentions taken by the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for
the official respondents. The contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.
39886 of 2022 that a hearing was not given to the petitioner is liable to be
rejected. It is evident from the facts and circumstances of this case and on
analysis of Ext.P12 award in WP(C) 39886 of 2022 that the objections
raised by the petitioner were considered while finalising Ext.P12 Award.
The contention of the petitioners in these writ petitions that market value is
to be determined as per criterion laid down in section 26(1)(c) of the Act in
the present case is liable to be rejected. In Santhakumar(supra), this
court was concerned with the question as to whether the District Collector
is justified in determining the market value of the lands by only taking the
criteria under clauses (a) and (b) of section 26(1) of the Act. After
considering the provisions of section 26 of the Act, it was held: -
"15. On an analysis of Clauses (a) to (c) of S.26 of the Act, it could be seen
that the legislative mandate is unambiguous and it is obligatory on the
part of the District Collector to make an enquiry, adopting different
methods envisaged under Clauses (a) to (c) of S.26 of the Act, to fix the
market value at the rate whichever is found higher in the enquiry. On a
close analysis of Clauses (a) to (c) of S.26 of the Act, it could be seen that,
even though an option is given by inserting 'or' between each clause, by
incorporating the expression "whichever is higher" at the end, an enquiry
by adopting all methods and application of criteria which is found higher
in such enquiry, are made mandatory. The market value of each criterion
under Clauses (a) to (c) of S.26 of the Act shall be explored and higher
value must be taken as market value of the acquired property.
16. Going by Ext. P3 Award passed by the District Collector, it is seen that
the District Collector has conducted an enquiry under Clauses (a) and (b)
of S.26 of the Act and omitted to conduct an enquiry under Clause (c) of
S.26 of the Act. At the same time, by Ext. P2, it is brought out in evidence
that for the similar properties in the same Reach, the DLPC fixed the
market value at a much higher level to the tune of Rs.11,36,469/- and
Rs.11,45,365/- respectively. Going by the counter affidavit, the
respondents have no case that those properties are not similarly situated
or not within the same Reach. If that be so, the District Collector ought to
have considered the market value fixed by the DLPC for the properties
referred to in Ext. P2 and whichever was found higher should have been
taken as the market value of the petitioners' lands also."
The Division bench, considering an appeal filed against the aforesaid
judgment, in Santha V.R (supra) held :-
"4. The learned Single Judge, on adjudication of the issue, found that
there is an unambiguous legislative mandate which casts an obligation
on the part of the acquisitioning authority to adopt the different criteria
envisaged under clause (a) to (c) of Section 26 of the Act, in order to fix
the market value at the rate of the highest among those criteria. Because
of the specific provision in Section 26; "whichever is higher of the three
criteria" it has to be followed. On evaluation of the factual aspects it was
found that the authority has considered only those criteria stipulated
under Clauses (a) and (b) alone and had omitted to conduct any enquiry
under Clause (c) of Section 26(1). Hence it was found that the impugned
awards are vitiated by procedural irregularities and illegalities and that
they are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petitions were
allowed and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority to
pass fresh awards.
5. We do not find any illegality or irregularity with respect to the
findings contained in the impugned judgment."
The judgments of this court in Santhakumar(supra) and Santha V.R
(supra) are not authority for the proposition that the criterion specified in
Section 26(1)(c) of the Act is applicable for fixing the amount of
compensation to be awarded even if the acquisition is not for private
companies or for public-private partnership projects. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of
section 26 (1) (c) of the Act are applicable to the case of petitioners does not
appeal to this court. Section 26 of the Act (to the extent it is relevant)reads
as follows: -
"26. Determination of market value of land by Collector-(1) The
Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining
the market value of the land, namely:--
a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
(2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell,
as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the
nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-
section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private
companies or for public private partnership projects,
whichever is higher:
It is clear from a reading of Sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act that the
provisions of the Act also apply to the acquisition of lands for private
companies / public-private partnership projects subject to conditions set
out in the proviso to that provision. Sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act
(to the extent it is relevant) reads as follows:
"The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition, consent,
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement shall also apply when the
appropriate Government acquires land for the following purposes,
namely:--
(a) for public private partnership projects, where the ownership of
the land continues to vest with the Government, for public purpose
as defined in sub-section (1);
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 17
(b) for private companies for public purpose, as defined in sub-
section (1):
A combined reading of Section 26(1)(c) read with Section 2(2) of the Act
indicates that the provisions of Section 26(1)(c) are applicable only in a case
where land is acquired for private companies or for public-private
partnership projects. In the facts of the present case, the lands in question
were acquired for the purpose of widening the PWD road, and the
requisitioning authority is KRFB, which is part of the Government and,
therefore, the criterion contemplated under section 26(1)(c) is not
applicable in assessing and determining the market value of the lands in
question. The provisions of Explanations 1 to 4 of Section 26 set out the
matters to be taken into consideration/matters to be excluded while fixing
land value in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(1)(b). If the
petitioner has any case that the said provisions have not been applied
properly, it is for the petitioners to seek a reference under Section 64 of the
Act.
Resultantly, I hold that the petitioners in these cases were not denied
any opportunity to present their case before the Special Tahsildar (LA). I
also hold that the provisions of Section 26(1)(c) of the Act are not
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 18
applicable to determine the amount of compensation (market value)
payable to the petitioners as their lands were not acquired for the purposes
of any private company or for any public-private partnership projects. If the
petitioners are in any manner aggrieved by the amount of compensation
fixed on the application of other applicable criteria in the Act, it is for the
petitioners to seek remedies in terms of Section 64 of the Act. It is made
clear that a period from 08.12.2022 till today in WP(C) 39886 of 2022 and
a period from 12.12.2022 till today in WP(C) 40362 of 2022, during which
these writ petitions were pending before this court shall be excluded for the
purposes of determining any period of limitation within which an
application under Section 64 of the Act had to be preferred, provided the
application is filed within a period of two weeks from today. It is also
directed that the trees standing on the acquired property shall be cut and
removed by the acquiring agency within a period of two weeks from today.
Leaving it open to the petitioners to exercise their right in terms of Section
64 of the Act, as above, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 19
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40362/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED NIL
FIXING LAND VALUE CIRCULATED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
09.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
10.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
09.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.12.2021 IN W.P(C) NO.29693/2021.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
01.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
07.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
08.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
08.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.09.2019 IN W.A 2020/2016 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS.
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2022
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2022
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2022
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 20
3RD PETITIONER.
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
14.11.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
25.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
09.12.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
09.12.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
09.12.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF IMAGE SHOWING THE MARKING
ON THE FLOOR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
08.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
12.01.2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR AND 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED ON
13.01.2023 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE DIRECTOR
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39886/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
23.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED NIL
FIXING LAND VALUE CIRCULATED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C)
NO.27976/2021
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C)
NO.6668/2022
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
01.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
ONE MR.K.C SASIDHARAN
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
05.07.2022 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION
DATED 20.08.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED
20.09.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
01.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.10.2022
GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
26.10.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2022
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZER DATED
08.11.2022 TAKING OVER POSSESSION OF LAND
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
25.11.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD
W.P.(C)No.39886/2022 & Conn.case 22
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16/12/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT ALONG ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING
THE SURVEY STONE AND THE TRESS STANDING ON
THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the notice dated 06.07.2022
