Kerala High Court
Girigh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
2025:KER:59774
W.P.(C).No.13715 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13715 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
1 GIRISH BABU
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN POTTY,
'DWARAKA', TC 40/1330,
MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 RADHIKA DEVI
AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN POTTY, OF -DO-
-DO- REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER
MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, S/O. ABOOBAKKER,
AGED 47 YEARS, THERUVIL TAIVILAYIL VEEDU,
PERUMANTHOOR DESOM, SARKKARA VILLAGE,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
NOW RESIDING AT PRAKASH BHAVAN,PLAPPATH VILA,
THIRUVALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
SMT.K.J.JISMA
SRI.M.RAJESH
SMT.RESHMA G.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2025:KER:59774
W.P.(C).No.13715 of 2016
2
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE (CLR),
OPPOSITE MUSEUM CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPANAKKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION,
KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5 THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
001.
6 VILLAGE OFFICER
KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
7 DISTRICT HEAD SURVEYOR
COLLECTORATE, KUDAPANAKKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.
8 GODFREE NETTO
S/O.AGINOSE P.NETTO, DEEPAM, VETTUTHURA,
CHANNANKARA P.O., KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 041.
9 BRINDA LEENOSE
D/O. AGINOSE P.NETTO,
RESIDING AT OF -DO- -DO-, PIN-695 041.
10 TREESA A.NETTO
W/O. AGINOSE P.NETTO, RESIDING AT OF -DO- -DO-
2025:KER:59774
W.P.(C).No.13715 of 2016
3
11 REMA JOHNY
D/O. JOSEPH GEORGE PEREIRA, RESIDING AT REMA,
CHANNANKARA P.O., KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK-695 041.
12 SHERLY M.
D/O. MARGARET THOMAS, RESIDING AT SHERLY COTTAGE,
VETTUTHURA, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 041.
13 MABLE JOHN
W/O. JOHN A.PAREIRA, RESIDING AT MABLE HOUSE,
VETTUTHARA, CHANNANKARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 041.
14 PHILOMINA CRUZ
D/O. DERIYA GOMEZ, RESIDING AT FRIJA DALE,
VETTUTHURA, CHANNANKARA P.O.,
KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 041.
15 SHAINY
D/O. MABLE GOMEZ, RESIDING AT SHYLA COTTAGE,
VETTUTHURA, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 041.
16 ALOCIOUS
S/O. IGNATIUS GOMEZ, RESIDING AT GRACE VILLA,
PUTHUKURICHY P.O., KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 041.
17 MABLE
W/O. JOBOY PERIERA, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL VEEDU,
PUTHENTHOPE NORTH,
KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 041.
18 SHIMMY
D/O. MAGI ALBERT, RESIDING AT SHEEJA COTTAGE,
VETTUTHURA, CHANNANKARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 041.
2025:KER:59774
W.P.(C).No.13715 of 2016
4
19 MARCIA LOBO ALIAS MARCICA GILBERT
D/O. BETTY LOBO, RESIDING AT SRG BUNGLOW,
VETTUTHURA,KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
20 KALISTER FERNANDEZ
S/O. ANTONY FERNANDEZ, RESIDING AT NAXIN COTTAGE,
VETTUTHURA, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
*ADDL.R21 P. CHANDRIKA RANI @ CHANDRIKA M NAIR, AGED 70
. YEARS
W/O. LATE T.K. MANIKANTAN NAIR, AMBALAYAM, MRA
126, POST OFFICE JUNCTION, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695009
ADDL.R22 C.S. SURESH KUMAR
AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O, LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, CHANDRAMANGALATH
VEEDU, TC 2/1253, POTTAKKUZHY, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004
*(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 21 AND 22 IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 03/08/2023 IN IA 2/2023)
BY ADVS.
SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
SMT.M.HEMALATHA
SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV JAFAR KHAN, SPL.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59774
W.P.(C).No.13715 of 2016
5
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.13715 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are the legal heirs of late Dr.S.Ramakrishnan
Potty. Crux of the contentions of the petitioners are as narrated
hereunder. Predecessor of the petitioner was having 28 acres of
land in Sy.Nos.366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372 of
Kadinamkulam Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The Taluk
Land Board opened a ceiling case against him and fixed 13 acres
as excess land. In O.P.No.2488/1989 this Court permitted the
predecessor of the petitioners to surrender 13 acres of the
south-western portion of the 28 acres. In O.P.No.10898/1993,
by judgment dated 10.11.1993, this Court directed 1 st
respondent to identify and demarcate 13 acres on the south-
western portion. It was further directed that if 4.15 acres of
vacant land fell outside the 13 acres the same shall be re-
2025:KER:59774
conveyed to the predecessor of the petitioner. On 22.5.1992, a
notice was issued for re-opening the ceiling case and upon a
challenge in O.P.No.8950/1992, this Court quashed the notice.
According to the petitioners, for a long time, because of these
proceedings their predecessor was not in a position to do
anything in the land. While so, several persons trespassed into
the properties, constructed buildings, fabricated and forged
documents and in collusion with the revenue officers started
paying taxes for the properties under their occupation. Release
of balance extent of 15 acres to the predecessor of the
petitioners never materialised. By proceedings dated
03.07.2009, the surrendered extent of 13 acres was taken
possession of. The RDO on 08.12.2010 issued directions to the
Additional Tahsildar with respect to mutation and payment of
tax for the properties not falling within the 13 acres and for
including the 13 acres as 'puramboke'. Predecessor of the
petitioner submitted objection as the land was demarcated
without notice and the 13 acres were not identified on the
2025:KER:59774
south-western portion. Objection was raised against payment
of taxes by persons having no rights. The Additional Tahsildar on
25.01.2011 conveyed to the Village Officer that 13 acres were
taken possession in compliance with the judgment in
O.P.No.8950/1992. It was also pointed out that certain
properties under the Thandaper No.2811, in the name of the
predecessor of the petitioners, were included in pattas granted
to various persons. Further mutations were directed to be made
only with the permission of the Tahsildar.
2. The District Collector, on the basis of complaints,
directed the Additional Tahsildar to examine all applications and
complaints regarding mutation cautiously, by letter dated
05.07.2012. The Additional Tahsildar intimated several persons
claiming title and possession that their documents were not
proper. Respondents 8 to 20 approached Lok Ayuktha in
complaint No.325/2013 alleging that revenue officers were not
effecting mutation and accepting tax. Finally the complaint was
closed on 15.11.2013. The District Collector called for a report
2025:KER:59774
from the Tahsildar in the meantime. On 24.12.2013, the
Tahsildar submitted a report stating that complainants before
the Lok Ayuktha had no title. Permission was sought for taking
further action. On 16.07.2014, a meeting was convened by the
Revenue Minister and some decisions were taken. It was
decided to depute a Special Survey Team for conducting a
survey and prepare sketch. It was also decided to put on hold
effecting of mutation and the acceptance of land tax until the
proceedings are completed.
3. The District Collector called for a report from the
Village Officer as several persons submitted applications for
effecting mutation. Village Officer submitted a detailed report on
26.9.2014. In the report produced as Ext.P11 it is stated inter
alia that the 13 acres of land surrendered as excess land has
not been demarcated. Further, the Village Officer stated that
persons who were claiming rights should have approached civil
court or obtained release deeds from the person having jenmam
right. According to the petitioners, only an extent of 6.6 acres
2025:KER:59774
was sold by their predecessor to Muslim Educational Society. 95
cents was sold to another party. The entire balance extent is
under the ownership of the petitioners.
4. The Special Survey Team constituted as per the
decision taken in the meeting convened by the Minister
submitted a report on 20.1.2015. The District Survey
Superintendent in turn submitted a report to the District
Collector. Thereafter, on 13.8.2015, the District Collector passed
the impugned order cancelling any restrictions in the matter of
accepting land tax with respect to properties not falling within
13 acres of excess land. Petitioners thereafter approached this
Court. Petitioners contend that the order passed by the District
Collector is illegal and perverse. According to them, no notice
was issued to them before passing the said order. The District
Collector and RDO had earlier directed the Tahsildar and the
Village Officer to verify title deeds of the applicants for payment
of tax and to effect mutation only after considering the
complaints. As per Ext.P6, the Additional Tahsildar had rejected
2025:KER:59774
the applications of respondents 8 to 20. This was for the reason
that no deeds were executed in favour of them by the late
Ramakrishnan Potty or his legal heirs. As evident from Ext.P9,
the Tahsildar had reported to the Collector that the 13 persons
who had approached Lok Ayuktha had no title. In Ext.P12
report, the Special Survey Team had mentioned that the party
respondents had no title, but when the Re-Survey BTR was
prepared names of those persons who were not having any title
were also recorded and thandaper was allotted to them. The
said procedure was totally illegal. Survey team has given the
list of those who were allotted thandaper wrongly. While issuing
Ext.P15, the District Collector ignored all these relevant aspects.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the Collector passed such an order having
drastic consequences in a matter pending for several years and
involved in several litigations at the instance of the petitioners
without issuing any notice to them. Regarding the contention
that intimation regarding hearing was published in newspapers,
2025:KER:59774
the learned counsel submitted that the said method was
adopted without issuing personal notice to the petitioners only
to deceive the petitioners. They did not notice the news items
regarding hearing published in the newspapers. As they were
continuously raising complaints and proceedings were initiated
on the basis of their representations, as a matter of fairness,
the Collector ought to have issued notices to them and heard
them before taking a decision in the matter. The learned
counsel submitted that the petitioners were denied natural
justice and the procedure adopted by the District Collector was
highly arbitrary. He also submitted that the Collector had no
authority to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P15. The learned
counsel submitted that the right course ought to have been
followed by the District Collector was to take action on the
report of the Special Survey Team. Instead of doing the same,
the Collector permitted the encroachers to remit property tax.
The learned counsel submitted that petitioners who were
fighting for establishing the rights and to recover the property
2025:KER:59774
under illegal occupation were not fairly dealt with by the
Collector.
5. The learned counsel relied on the following
judgments of this Court:-
1. Abdul Majeed v. Shareefa [2014 (2)
KLT 265],
2. Renjith v. District Collector [2019
(1) KLT 164],
3. Rahulan v. Tahsildar (LR) [2021 (4)
KLT 689],
4. Sreedevi Amma v. District
Collector [2009 (2) KLT 141],
5. Sunil v. Additional Thahasildar,
Kollam and Others [2019 (2) KHC
889],
6. Ajayakumar v. District Collector
[2019 (4) KLT 105].
6. The learned counsel, relying on the above judgments,
submitted that the explanation offered by the Government in
their counter affidavit that the order passed by the District
2025:KER:59774
Collector permitting to receive tax from the party respondents
will not have any serious consequences on the respective rights
of the parties, as it is only for fiscal purposes, is untenable. He
made a specific reference to the judgment of a Division Bench in
Abdul Majeed (supra), wherein the Division Bench observed
that it cannot be said that any change made in the revenue
records to enable remitting of tax is of no serious consequence.
The learned counsel further submitted that the revenue officials
are entitled to collect tax only from the landholder, and the
party respondents cannot be considered as landholders. He also
submitted that even if the respondents paid basic tax for any
previous periods, that would not confer them the right to
continue such payment. He concluded by submitting that
Ext.P15 order of the District Collector is not sustainable in view
of the law laid down by this Court in various judgments cited by
him.
7. The learned Government Pleader opened his
submissions by stating that the petitioners are actually making
2025:KER:59774
an attempt to get civil rights decided in a writ petition. He
contended that the petitioners, who are basically raising a
grievance that the properties of their predecessor-in-interest
were encroached upon by the party respondents and others,
have not approached the civil court for proper relief so far. He
submitted that the writ petition is actually misconceived. The
learned Government Pleader made reference to the gift deed by
virtue of which the late Ramakrishnan Potty obtained these
properties. He pointed out that at the time of execution of the
said deed also, there was encroachment of the property by third
parties as seen from the recitals. He hence contended that long
ago, in 1960 it was noticed by the predecessors-in-interest of
late Ramakrishnan Potty that it was necessary to approach civil
court for evicting the encroachers. However, neither the
predecessor in interest nor Ramakrishnan Potty or any one
claiming under him moved the civil court. The learned
Government Pleader pointed out that mutations are effected
following the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.
2025:KER:59774
Reading out Rule 2, the learned Government Pleader contended
that it is not for the Revenue Officers to verify the veracity or
genuineness of the transaction when a person is claiming rights
under a deed and approaches them for effecting mutation. He
also pointed out Rule 16 and submitted that, in case there is a
dispute regarding title, the remedy provided under the Rules is
a civil suit. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out
Rule 28 and submitted that claims with respect to adverse
possession can be taken note of by the Revenue Authorities in
the matter of effecting mutation. He made reference to the
definition of the expression 'land holder' in the Land Tax Act,
1961, and submitted that the claims of the petitioners are not
legally sustainable, as the disputed lands are admittedly not
held by them. The learned Government Pleader also made
reference to the definition of the expression 'registered holder'
in the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961. He argued that
the properties which were gifted to the late Ramakrishnan Potty
were under encroachment or occupation by various persons for
2025:KER:59774
the past several decades, and even the excess land surrendered
could not be physically possessed by the Government as several
persons were residing in the property. He further submitted that
factual disputes, which can be decided only on the basis of
evidence by a competent civil court, are involved in the case at
hand and hence the reliefs sought in the writ petition may not
be granted. The learned Government Pleader justified Ext. P15
issued by the District Collector. He pointed out that notice
regarding the hearing was given by issuing press notes, and
leading dailies had published the news about the hearing.
Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that the
Collector took the decision and issued Ext.P15 behind their
back. The Collector, taking note of the facts and circumstances,
permitted the party respondents and others to remit the basic
tax with the intention of putting an end to the stalemate
regarding the payment of tax. He argued that the mere
payment of basic tax did not confer any right on anyone, and
hence the order issued by the Collector was not of much
2025:KER:59774
consequence as far as the actual dispute is concerned, which
can be resolved only by the civil court. The learned Government
Pleader therefore, submitted that this writ petition may be
dismissed. The learned Government Pleader relied on the
following judgments of this Court in support of his contentions:
1. Rajkumar S. and Others v. Tahsildar,
Devikulam and Others [2020 (3) KHC 270],
2. Marunnoli Vijayalakhsmi and Others v.
Tahsildar, Koyilandi Taluk and Others
[2019 (1) KHC 142],
3. Laila v. Village Officer, Thirkkovilvattom
Village Office and Others [2019 (4) KHC
799],
4. Renjith.K.C v. District Collector, Ernakulam
District and Others [2019 KHC 6],
5. Sudan K.K and others v. State of Kerala
and Others [2013 (4) KHC 201],
6. Rimmy v. State of Kerala and Others
[2012 KHC 2981],
7. Vijayarajan M.D v. Tahsildar and Others
[2013 KHC 2764].
8. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 to
20 submitted that the party respondents have been enjoying the
2025:KER:59774
properties on the basis of documents validly executed by a
competent person. She contended that 50 Acres of property
comprised in Sy.Nos.366 to 372 of Kadinamkulam Village
belonged to one Haridasan Potti, who died issueless. He had
sold 6 Acres of property to various persons. The learned counsel
pointed out the detailed narration in the counter affidavit filed
by the 11th respondent as to how the title of the properties
derived on the respondents 8 to 20. On the basis of the detailed
description of derivation of title, she submitted that the party
respondents did not receive any property from late
Ramakrishnan Potty. The crux of the contention is that the
properties held by respondents 8 to 20 were never part of the
28 acres of land held by Ramakrishnan Potty when the Land
Board initiated ceiling proceedings. She also contended that,
even if it is assumed without admitting that there is any
substance in the petitioners' contentions, the appropriate
remedy is to approach the civil court and seek to have the
allegedly forged and fabricated documents set aside. The
2025:KER:59774
learned counsel submitted, with reference to the averments in
the affidavit filed on 12.01.2024, that the party respondents
received credible information, after the counter affidavit was
filed that the writ petitioners, their predecessors-in-interest, and
their power of attorney holder had disposed of almost all the
properties in favour of third parties. She referred to the
information obtained under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act regarding the transactions made by the late
Ramakrishnan Potty and his power of attorney holders, as
narrated in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the affidavit. She submitted
that some of the reports by the revenue officers, which were
relied upon by the petitioners, were prepared without
considering the facts revealed under the Right to Information
Act regarding mutations related to Thandaper No.2811. The
learned counsel contended that the party respondents were
unable to pay the basic tax or enjoy their properties due to the
frivolous claims raised by the petitioners. She submitted that
the District Collector intervened and issued Ext.P15, permitting
2025:KER:59774
them to remit the basic tax. She contended that the petitioners
are proceeding on entirely wrong premises, and that the writ
petition is not maintainable, as the reliefs sought cannot be
granted by determining the rights of the parties in this writ
petition.
9. The overall picture obtained from hearing the counsel
for the respective parties and perusing the pleadings and
documents is that of a very complex factual situation. The
contention of the petitioners is that the properties left with the
predecessors-in-interest after surrendering 13 acres of excess
land, as determined by the Land Board, could not be enjoyed by
them. They project a grievance that at no point of time, any
valid deeds were executed either by late Ramakrishnan Potty or
his legal heirs with respect to any part of the properties. Hence,
they contend that whoever is now occupying parts of the
property are illegal occupants. The main contention raised
during the course of arguments was that different Thandaper
numbers were assigned to the properties held by various
2025:KER:59774
persons after the resurvey. According to the petitioners, this
was highly improper and was noted by the Village Officer and
the Tahsildar in their reports. It is also pointed out by the
petitioners that the findings of the Special Survey Team was
also to the effect that the persons now occupying the land have
no proper title of the properties. The major grievance projected
in the writ petition is regarding the decision taken by the
Collector. The petitioners assailed the decision taken by the
Collector reflected in Ext.P15 on various grounds. One of the
contentions is that the said decision having drastic
consequences as far as the claims of the petitioners are
concerned, was passed without proper notice to them. The
Government has no case that any notice was issued to the
petitioners. The procedure adopted was that of issuing a public
notice by publishing the news regarding the hearing in
newspapers. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that news items escaped notice of the petitioners and therefore,
they could not appear before the Collector and raise objections
2025:KER:59774
against permitting the party respondents and others to remit
basic tax. They contend that it was very well within the
knowledge of all revenue authorities concerned that they were
aggrieved by illegal occupation of the property by the party
respondents and others and had been pursuing the matter for
long. They hence, contend that as a matter of propriety and
fairness, the Collector ought to have issued notice to them and
heard them also before issuing Ext.P15. The 2 nd ground of
challenge broadly is with respect to rights claimed by the
petitioners over the properties held by the late Ramakrishnan
Potty. There is serious dispute with regard to this aspect. There
is factual dispute even as to whether the properties held by
respondents 8 to 20 were actually part of the properties
obtained by virtue of a gift deed by the late Ramakrishnan Potty.
True that their names were also included by the Government in
the list of persons who were occupying the properties which
were originally under the Thandaper number given to late
Ramakrishnan Potty.
2025:KER:59774
10. In the nature of the dispute between the petitioners
and the party respondents, in my considered view, rendering
any opinions regarding the merits of the rival claims in a writ
petition will be improper. The disputes have various factual
ramifications and resolving the same is not within the contours
of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, though extensive submissions
were made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and also learned counsel appearing for the party respondents
regarding derivation of title, possession and rights claimed by
both sides with reference to various documents, I refrain from
entering into the merits of such contentions and leave it open to
the parties to agitate the same before appropriate forums.
11. However, regarding Ext.P15 proceedings of the
District Collector, I find that the petitioners have a grievance
that no notice was issued to them and no opportunity was
provided for them before passing the same. The Collector had
caused newspaper publication regarding hearing. In normal
circumstances, the same can be considered as sufficient notice.
2025:KER:59774
However, in the case at hand, the dispute arose only because
petitioners who are the legal heirs of Ramakrishnan Potty raised
claims regarding their rights over the extent of 15 Acres of land
which remained with late Ramakrishnnan Potty as per the
decision of the Land Board, considered by this Court also in
C.R.P.No.1220/1976 as also in O.P.Nos.2488/1989, 8950/1990,
and 10898/1993. Fact that the petitioners herein were the
aggrieved persons pursuing the matter was not unknown to the
revenue authorities. That being so, as a matter of propriety, in
order to ensure procedural fairness and to comply with the
principles of natural justice, the Collector ought to have issued
notices to the petitioners and heard them before taking the
decision to permit the party respondents and others to remit
basic tax. In the said view of the matter, I find it appropriate to
set aside Ext.P15 and to direct the District Collector to consider
the matter afresh with notice to the petitioners and all other
interested parties. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed and
the following directions are issued:-
2025:KER:59774
a) Ext.P15 is set aside.
b) The District Collector shall fix a date for hearing
to consider the matter afresh.
c) Notice regarding the date of hearing shall be
issued to the petitioners and the party
respondents in this writ petition.
d) It will be appropriate that the Collector issues
press note regarding the hearing as done
before issuing Ext.P15, so that any others
interested may also participate in the hearing.
e) The interim order preventing acceptance of
basic tax from the party respondents passed
on 06.04.2016 by this Court shall remain in
force till a fresh decision is taken by the
Collector as directed above.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
S.MANU
skj&rp JUDGE
2025:KER:59774
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13715/2016
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
P1 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP
NO.8950/1992 DTD.23.5.2003.
P2 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TLB158/73/A
DTD.3.7.2009.
P3 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A58/73/TLB
DTD.8.12.2010.
P4 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H3-4814/27
DTD.25.1.2011.
P5 A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR NO.B9-47298/2012
DTD.5.7.2012.
P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H363947/12
DTD.3.8.2013 OF THE ADDITIONAL
TAHSILDAR.
P7 A COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR BEFORE THE HON'BLE
LOK AYUKTA DTD.27.9.2013.
P8 A COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT
NO.325/2013 OF THE HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA
DTD.15.11.2013.
P9 A COPY OF THE REPORT NO.H3-6205/12 OF
THE TAHSILDAR DTD.24.12.2013.
P10 A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DTD.16.7.2014.
P11 A COPY OF THE REPORT NO.41/2014
DTD.26.9.2014 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KADINAMKULAM.
P12 A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL
SURVEY TEAM.
P13 A COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.20.1.2015 OF
THE DISTRICT HEAD SURVEYOR.
P14 A COPY OF THE REPORT NO.J6.64549/14 OF
THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT.
P15 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B9/40298/12
2025:KER:59774
DTD.13.8.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P16 A COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT
NO.325/2013 DTD.18.11.2015 OF THE
HON'BLE LOK AYUKTA.
P17 A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.12.11.2015
SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH NO. J6-
6454/14 PREPARED BY THE SPECIAL SURVEY
TEAM HEADED BY DISTRICT SURVEY
SUPERINTENDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN
THE YEAR 2014 WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS
DEMARCATED
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R20(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10696/22 DATED 03-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
WHO IS THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION
Exhibit -R20(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO.10698/22 DATED 03-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF 2ND PETITIONER WHO
IS THE 9TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION
Exhibit -R20(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10554/22 DATED 30-11-
2022 IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER
WHO IS THE 10TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10580/22 DATED 01-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF THE FAMILY OF THE
4TH PETITIONER WHO IS THE 11TH
RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10784/22 DATED 06-12-
2022.
Exhibit -R20(f) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10747/22 DATED 06-12-
2025:KER:59774
2022 IN THE NAME OF THE 5TH PETITIONER
WHO IS THE 12TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(g) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10740/22 DATED 05-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF THE 6TH PETITIONER
WHO IS THE 13TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(h) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10752/22 DATED 06-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF THE 7TH PETITIONER
WHO IS THE 14TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(i) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10853/22 DATED 08-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF THE 8TH PETITIONER
AND WHO IS THE 15TH RESPONDENT IN THE
WRIT PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(j) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10852/22 IN RESPECT OF
MERFI DATED 08-12-2022.
Exhibit -R20(k) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10872/22 DATED 09-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF THE 10TH PETITIONER
WHO IS THE 17TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(l) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 11058/22 DATED 15-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF 11TH PETITIONER WHO
IS THE 18TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(m) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10504/22 DATED 28-11-
2022 IN THE NAME OF 12TH PETITIONER WHO
IS THE 19TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(n) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO.10680/22 DATED 03-12-
2022 IN THE NAME OF 13TH PETITIONER WHO
2025:KER:59774
IS THE 20TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
Exhibit -R20(o) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE NO. 10682/22 WITH RESPECT
TO THAT PROPERTY DATED 03-12-2022.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED
15.10.1998
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION DATED
20.11.1998
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2010
IN I.A NO. 156/2009 IN COMPLAINT NO.
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.01.2017 IN W.P (C) NO. 13347/2010
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
DATED 30.03.2019
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit-R20(P) A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED NO.
4797 OF 2004 IN FAVOUR OF THE AFORESAID
SHAMNAD DATED 27-12-2004
Exhibit-R20(Q) A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID POWER OF
ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE AFORESAID
MUHAMMED HUSSAIN DATED 07-01-2011
Exhibit-R20(R) A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED NO.
670 OF 1998 IN FAVOUR OF THE AFORESAID
RAMLA RAHIM DATED 18-04-1998
Exhibit-R20(S) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM
THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KADINAMKULAM DATED
26-08-2023
ANNEXURE R3(a) True Copy of the Gift Deed No.
2806/1960 dated 29.11.1960.
Annexure-1 True copy of the Survey Plan
