Kerala High Court
The Secretary, Municipal Corporation ... vs R.Ranganatha Iyer on 25 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14943 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
BY ADV.
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 R.RANGANATHA IYER,
KOTTARAKONATHU MADAM, MRAA-158, KALLAMPALLY, MEDICAL
COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT
KARTHIK BHAVAN, LBSRA-314, SASTHRI ROAD, THIRUVAMKULAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305
2 VIDYA LATHIKA,
GOWREESANKARAM, TC 9/36(1), KATTUVILA, VALLUNNI,
MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
3 AMEER HAMZA,
TC 9/935(1), MRAB-264, KALLAMPALLY, MULAVOOR LANE,
SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017
4 ANANDAVALLY,
VIPANCHIKA, VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.PKRAC-20,
KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT), PIN -
695017
5 HARIKRISHNA,
VIPANCHIKA, VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.PKRAC-20,
KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695017
2024:KER:79798
W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 2
6 NAVANEETH KRISHNA,
VIPANCHIKA, VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.PKRAC-20,
KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695017
BY ADVS.
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM FOR R1
SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R3
SRI.S. SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM FOR R1
SRI.A.D.SHAJAN FOR R1
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 16.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).26595/2019, THE COURT ON
25.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79798
W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 26595 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
R.RENGANATHA IYER,
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.SUBRAMANIA IYER, KOTTARAKONATHUMADOM, MRA A 158,
KALLAMPALLY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695011, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KARTHIK BHAVAN, SASTHRI
ROAD, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682305.
BY ADV. SRI. S. SANTHALINGAM (SENIOR COUNSEL)
SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM
SRI.A.D.SHAJAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT (R AND A), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
5 CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695033.
2024:KER:79798
W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 4
6 KRISHNAN KUTTY,
VIPANCHIKA HOUSE, NO.PKRA-C-20, VINAYAKA NAGAR,
KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARIYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695017.
7 VIDYALATHIKA,
GOUREESANKARAM, T C 9/36(1), KATTUVILA, VALLUNNI,
MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O.-695011.
8 AMEER HAMSA,
TC 9/535 (1), MRAB-264, KALLAMPALLY, MULAVOOR LANE,
SREEKARIYAM.P.O.-695017.
9 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.PREETHA K.K.FOR R1 TO R4 & R9
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL FOR R6
SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN, SC FOR R5
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION
SRI.S.VENUGOPAL FOR R6
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC FOR R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON,
16.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).14943/2023, THE COURT ON 25.10.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79798
W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 5
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
................................................................................
W.P(C) Nos.26595 of 2019 and 14943 of 2023
.............................................................................................
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
W.P(C) No.26595/2019 has been filed seeking implementation of Ext.P6
order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvananthapuram and also for a declaration that the excavation of the soil from
the property of the petitioner by the adjacent owners, the party respondents, is
illegal. The petitioner submits that he owns the property measuring 11 cents in Re-
survey No.528/7. The adjoining slopping agricultural land on the southern side of the
petitioner's property used for tapioca cultivation was owned by the 6 th respondent
and due to the unauthorised excavation of the soil from the base of the petitioner's
compound wall and old house to a depth of 20 feet by the 6th respondent, the owner
of the adjacent property, a portion of the petitioner's compound wall collapsed to a
depth of about 20 feet resulting in total damage to his compound wall leaving the old
house in danger. It is alleged that the said incident occurred on 30.05.2010. It is
further stated that the present owner, the 7 th respondent, refused to construct a
strong retaining wall and when there was no response, he brought the matter to the
notice of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and also filed an application before
the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram and
2024:KER:79798
their orders were not implemented by respondents 6 to 8 and that the 4 th respondent,
the Revenue Divisional Officer, had directed respondents 6 and 7 to construct a
strong retaining wall sharing the costs and with the option to submit a valid
objection if any by 21.02.2018. As there was no response from respondents 6 and 7,
the order passed by the 4th respondent on 09.01.2018 has become final. The claim
against the 3rd respondent [the 8th respondent in W.P(C) No.26595/2019] Ameer
Hamsa was given up.
2. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:-
a) Call for the records connected with the case.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary steps for the
implementation of Ext.P2 order dtd.9.1.2018 of the 4th respondent.
c) Declare that the delay and laches on the part of the respondents 1 to 5 in
the implementation of Ext.P2 order dtd.9.1.2018 of the 4th respondent is
illegal and arbitrary.
d) Declare that excavation of soil from the property of the petitioners by
the adjacent owners is illegal and arbitrary.
e) Pass such other orders as are deemed fit, fair, just and necessary in the
circumstances of the case.
3. The 6th respondent had filed a counter stating that his property was
already assigned to respondents 7 and 8 as per the sale Deed dated 14.03.2006,
Ext.R6(a) and therefore he had no manner of right over the properties in question.
He also submitted that respondents 7 and 8 have already constructed granite
retaining walls between their properties and the properties belonging to the
petitioner and that the petitioner's property becomes waterlogged during rainy
seasons and the compound wall fell on account of that. It is also pointed out that the
writ petitioner had filed O.S.No.1255/2010 before the Sub Court-I,
2024:KER:79798
Thiruvananthapuram for damages and Ext.R6(c) is the plaint in the said suit. It is
also stated that the petitioner had filed O.S. No.1449/2012 before the Munsiff's Court,
Thiruvananthapuram against the 6th respondent and others to restore the lateral
support, to restore the plaint schedule property to its original state and also to
remove the danger to the plaint schedule property by constructing a retaining wall,
etc. The true copy of the plaint in the said suit is marked as Ext.R6(d). It is stated
that it is for the same relief that Ext.P1 complaint was filed before the 4 th respondent.
Though the 4th respondent had passed Ext.P2 order, the same was challenged by the
6th respondent by filing Crl.M.C.No.6235/2018, wherein this Court directed the
Revenue Divisional Officer to hear the objections of the 6 th respondent as well and to
pass orders. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed Ext.R6(e) and the 6 th respondent
submitted that no further orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is
also pointed out that the writ petitioner had filed complaint No.460/2018 before the
Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions again regarding the very same
issue. It is submitted that the pendency of the suit was suppressed by the writ
petitioner in Ext.P1 complaint and having approached the civil court to redress his
grievances on the same cause of action, the other proceedings initiated by the writ
petitioner were unnecessary.
4. The writ petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit filed by the
6th respondent producing notice dated 08.09.2010 issued to the 6 th respondent, notice
dated 26.11.2010 and also the notices dated 11.02.2011 and 03.02.2015 calling upon
the 6th respondent to remedy the wrong done. It is also stated that the Secretary of
2024:KER:79798
the Corporation had convened two meetings with notice to respondents 6, 7 and 8, to
ensure that the remedial works are carried out by the 6 th respondent. The Executive
Engineer had also submitted a report to the Ombudsman pointing out that at least an
amount of Rs.1,24,000/- is required to complete the construction of the compound
wall.
5. A statement has also been filed by the 5 th respondent Corporation
contending that they had received a complaint on 15.06.2010 alleging that during the
heavy rain in 2010, a portion of the compound wall of the property of the writ
petitioner collapsed due to the removal of the earth by the 6 th respondent adjacent to
the compound wall. The Corporation Council had directed the writ petitioner to
approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs and the decision of the
Council was duly communicated to the writ petitioner on 22.05.2017.
6. A counter has been filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent, the Sub
Divisional Magistrate that a preliminary order was issued under Section 133(e) of the
Criminal Procedure Code finding that the life and property of the petitioner were in
danger due to the excavation of soil from the close proximity of the petitioner's
property which had to be protected by constructing a retaining wall. It is after
perusing the report of the Village Officer and objections that the Revenue Divisional
Officer passed an order 05.10.2019 directing remedial measures by approaching the
competent civil court as the inference was that the dispute was of a civil nature and
therefore there was no need to proceed further invoking the criminal procedures. It
is also stated that the preliminary order issued need not be recalled or modified in
2024:KER:79798
the backdrop of the civil suits pending and that a civil suit between the parties and
that there is no public danger involved in the case and that the parties can redress
their disputes collaterally or by seeking remedies from civil courts. It is also stated
that it cannot be treated as an imminent danger to property or life in a dispute which
has been prevailing since 2010.
7. W.P(C) No.14943/2023 is filed by the Municipal Corporation,
Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order passed by the Ombudsman for Local
Self-Government Institutions, Ext.P7 dated 14.06.2022, that directed respondents 2
and 3 in the complaint to reconstruct the boundary wall and if the respondents failed
to do so, the Corporation was directed to construct the boundary wall and realise the
amount from respondents 2 and 3. The said order of the Ombudsman is being
challenged as without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 271 G of
the Kerala Municipality Act. It is also stated that the Ombudsman is not vested with
any powers under the statute to interfere in civil disputes between private parties or
to compel the Corporation to construct a compound wall. Even though it was pointed
out to the Ombudsman that civil suits are pending, the same was not considered by
the Ombudsman while passing the order impugned in the writ petition.
8. It is admitted that the writ petitioner had earlier approached the
Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions by filing complaint No.316/2011,
in which an order was passed on 10.03.2011. It is stated that the proceedings in
complaint No.316/2011 were closed by proceedings dated 03.11.2015. As per the
directions, the application of the complainant was disposed of by the Corporation
2024:KER:79798
Council in 2017 and the matter was intimated to the complainant on 22.05.2017. It is
thereafter that complaint No.460/2018 was filed before the Ombudsman, wherein the
Corporation had brought to the notice of the Ombudsman that the civil suits were
pending between two private individuals. The said complaint No.460/2018 was closed
for non-prosecution on 27.12.2021 as per Ext.P5 order. Long thereafter the
complainant filed a review petition in which the Ombudsman passed an order
directing the petitioner to examine the boundary wall with the help of experts and to
submit a report as per Ext.P6 order. In compliance with the said order, an inspection
was conducted and a report was submitted stating that since the issue is between two
private individuals, Corporation funds cannot be utilised for the construction of the
compound wall in question. It is after receiving the said report, that a further order
was passed on 14.06.2022 directing respondents 2 and 3 in the complaint to
reconstruct the boundary wall. It is the said order that is challenged in the writ
petition. The prayers in the writ petition filed by the Corporation are to set aside
Ext.P7 and also to quash all proceedings in complaint No.460/2018 on the files of the
Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, by declaring the same as without
jurisdiction.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. S. Santhalingam argues that going by the
provisions of Section 414 of the Municipality Act read with Section 440, there is a
duty on the Municipal Corporation to abate the nuisance caused by illegal quarrying.
It is also submitted that the directions of the Ombudsman, were in the context of the
corporation officials not taking further steps pursuant to the notice they issued,
2024:KER:79798
which must be treated as maladministration, making the complaints before the
Ombudsman maintainable.
10. On a reading of Sections 414 and 440 of the Municipality Act, it is clear
that they cannot be stretched to an extent where the Corporation can direct one of
the parties in a dispute between two private parties either to construct a compound
wall or to direct such construction. Section 414 surely empowers the Corporation to
stop quarrying if the same results in a nuisance and even to take steps to abate the
nuisance, but it cannot be interpreted to mean that it had a duty to construct a wall
to offer lateral support in a dispute between two private parties.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petition,
Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, argues that the order of the Ombudsman, in the instant
case, was illegal as much for the reason that the same was passed when the civil suits
were pending as by the fact that the dispute between two private individuals could
not have been settled through the proceedings before the Ombudsman. There could
not have been any maladministration or charges of corruption against the
Corporation officials for not constructing a compound wall in a dispute between
private parties.
12. It is not in dispute that the claim of the writ petitioner in W.P(C)
No.26595/2019 is made against private individuals regarding the demolition of the
wall affecting the lateral support of the property of the said petitioner. Though
Section 414 gives the Municipality the power to stop dangerous quarrying in case in
the opinion of the Secretary, the working of any quarry or the removal of stone,
2024:KER:79798
earth or other material from any place is dangerous to persons residing in or having
legal access to the neighbourhood thereof or creates or is likely to create a nuisance,
the Secretary may, by notice, require the owner or person having control of the said
quarry or place to discontinue working the same or to discontinue removing stone,
earth or other material from such place or make such order as he deems necessary
for the purpose of preventing danger or abating the nuisance arise or likely to arise
from such quarry or place. This power to the Municipality to stop dangerous
quarrying cannot be enlarged to the extent of directing the Corporation to construct
a retaining wall in a property separating two private holdings.
13. That apart, from the judgment in O.S. No. 1449/2012, a suit filed by the
petitioner in W.P(C) No.26595/2019 (produced as Ext.R1(o) in W.P(C) No.14943 of
2023), the plaintiff writ petitioner contended that he reconstructed the wall by
spending Rs.1,47,63/- and had also instituted a suit for damages with the third
defendant, one Krishnankutty, who is respondent No. 6 in W.P(C) No.26595/2019. It
was the contention that even after the institution of the suit the said retaining wall
again collapsed and the same was reconstructed by the plaintiff at a cost of
Rs.34,500/-. After an elaborate consideration including the commission report filed
in the suit, it was found that due to the removal of the sand, the lateral support of the
plaint schedule property belonging to the petitioner was badly affected which in turn
affected the building situated therein. The writ petitioner was found entitled to get a
decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for. As regards the claim for
damages, the same was not granted by the court holding that the claimant had failed
2024:KER:79798
to prove his damages. A prohibitory injunction was granted against the defendants
from digging the plaint B and C schedule properties and from further effecting any
construction there, which endangers the lateral support of the southern boundary of
the property and the house therein and from committing any act of waste in the
plaint schedule property.
14. It is to be noticed that there was a claim for mandatory injunction
made in the said suit to restore the lateral support and for constructing the B
schedule retaining wall. However, the said relief was not pursued as the plaintiff/the
writ petitioner obtained a favourable order on 14.06.2022 from the Ombudsman for
Local Self-Government Institutions, in OP. 460/2018 filed against the Corporation and
the defendants therein. Accordingly, the plaintiff had filed a memo relinquishing the
prayer for mandatory injunction. As regards the writ petition filed by the
Corporation for the reasons stated above, a direction to the Corporation by the
Ombudsman for putting up a retaining wall in a private dispute between two
individuals cannot be justified. There is an added reason to hold that the proceedings
before the Ombudsman were not maintainable because of the nature of the dispute
and also the bar created under Section 271(M) which prevented any enquiry by the
Ombudsman in a matter pending before a court. At the time when the Ombudsman
was moved, the suits were pending. The Ombudsman for Local Self-Government
Institutions also cannot settle private disputes between parties and can act only
based on an allegation/complaint/maladministration coming within the ambit of
Section 271 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Under such circumstances, Ext.P7
2024:KER:79798
impugned in W.P(C) No. 14943/2023 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly
quashed.
15. The direction to implement the orders of the RDO also cannot be
acceded to at this distance of time, more so after the culmination of the civil
proceedings between the parties. The power under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. can
only be exercised to prevent the imminent danger concerning public rights for
matters provided under Cr.P.C. and not for deciding property rights.
16. Ideally, the prayer for a mandatory injunction to put up the wall ought
to have been considered by the trial court, but the plaintiff relinquished the said
prayer because they had obtained orders from the Ombudsman for Local Self-
Government Institutions. Since the rights of the writ petitioner/plaintiff were upheld
by the Civil Court, the judgment in these writ petitions will not preclude their rights
to institute appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court seeking a direction against
the party respondents responsible for the collapse of the compound wall.
Subject to the above, W.P(C) No.26595/2019 is dismissed and W.P(C)
No.14943/2023 is allowed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
okb/17.10.24
2024:KER:79798
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26595/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.4.2017 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MC.3/4/18 DATED 9.1.2018
PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.7.2018 ISSUED BY
THE JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2018 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.6257/2018 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.11.2017 RECEIVED
UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.5.2019 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.7.2019 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.9.2019
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 8/9/2010 WAS ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/11/2010 WAS ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/2/2011 WAS ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/10/2015 WAS ISSUED BY
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION
TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 17/12/2011 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3/11/2015 IN COMPLAINT
NO.316/2011 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
2024:KER:79798
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.983/2006 DATED 14.3.2006
OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PATTOM
EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 1529/2007 DATED 3.4.2007
OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PATTOM
EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 1255/2010 BEFORE THE
SUB COURT-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25.10.2010
EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 1449/2012 BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF COURT-II THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 21.2.2018
2024:KER:79798
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14943/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.460/2018
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2011 IN COMPLAINT
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2015 IN COMPLAINT
NO.316/2011 BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS DATED 15.11.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2018 ON
THE FILES OF OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2021 IN COMPLAINT
NO.460/2018 BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2022 IN R.P
NO.13/2022 IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2022
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 IN R.P
NO.13/2022 IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2018
Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 IN CMP
NO.1/2023 IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2018
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 8/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 17/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2024:KER:79798
Exhibit R1(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/2/2016 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 16/4/2018 IN CMP NO.
71/16 IN OP 316/11 RECEIVED FROM THE OMBUDSMAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION
Exhibit R1(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/8/2022 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 20/9/2022 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 31/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/5/2023 IN CMP NO.1/2023
IN COMPLAINT NO. 460/2018 THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
Exhibit R1(m) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/6/2022 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION
Exhibit R1(n) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PLOT FOR SALE 11 CENT
Exhibit R1(o) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 9/12/2022 IN O S NO.
1449/2012 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit R1(p) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3/11/2015 IN COMPLAINT NO.
316/2011 OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit R1(q) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ULLOOR CORPORATION TO KRISHNAN KUTTY
Exhibit R1(r) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/8/2009 IN WP(C) NO.
23332/2009 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
