Kerala High Court
Vincy Cherian vs The District Collector on 14 February, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:16245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 26327 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 VINCY CHERIAN,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VENKAYIPARA
ESTATE, ANAVERATTY P.O., ADIMALY VIA, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, PIN-685561.
2 TOMY CHERIAN,
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VENKAYIPARA
ESTATE, ANAVERATTY P.O., ADIMALY VIA, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, PIN-685561.
3 GEORGE CHERIAN,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VENKAYIPARA
ESTATE, ANAVERATTY P.O., ADIMALY VIA, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, PIN-685561.
4 VIANNEY CHERIAN,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VENKAYIPARA
ESTATE, ANAVERATTY P.O., ADIMALY VIA, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, PIN-685561.
5 JOSEPH CHERIAN,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VENKAYIPARA
ESTATE, ANAVERATTY P.O., ADIMALY VIA, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, PIN-685561.
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 2 2025:KER:16245
6 THOMAS CHERIAN,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VENKAYIPARA
ESTATE, ANAVERATTY P.O., ADIMALY VIA, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, PIN-685561.
7 MERINA CHERIAN,
AGED 61 YEARS
D/O. LATE CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VENKAYIPARA
ESTATE, ANAVERATTY P.O., ADIMALY VIA, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, PIN-685561.
8 KOCHURANI CHERIAN,
AGED 59 YEARS
D/O. LATE CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VENKAYIPARA
ESTATE, ANAVERATTY P.O., ADIMALY VIA, DEVIKULAM
TALUK, PIN-685561.
BY ADV JOHN NELLIMALA SARAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
(THE CARDAMOM SETTLEMENT OFFICER), COLLECTORATE,
PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685603.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM-685613.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE (R) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
*5 AJI GOPALAN
AGED 34 YEARS
VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O. , IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
**6 SUMITHRA SIJU
W/O SIJU, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O , IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 3 2025:KER:16245
#7 LAKSHMI RAJU
W/O RAJU, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT, KALLAR,
VATTAYAR.P.O , IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
##8 KAVERI PRADEEP
W/O PRADEEP, VENKAYAPPARA TRIBAL SETTLEMENT,
KALLAR, VATTAYAR.P.O. , IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
(*#ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2024 IN I.A 1 OF 2024 IN
W.P.(C)NO.26327 OF 2021.
BY ADVS.
A.V.JOJO
A.X.VARGHESE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. M. H.HANIL KUMAR , SPL. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 4 2025:KER:16245
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash
Ext.P7 order dated 07.11.2018 of the 4th respondent Additional
Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (R) Department,
whereby Ext.P4 representation dated 14.09.2017 made by the
petitioners for assignment of 99.61 Acres of Government land in
Survey Nos.229/1, 2 and 3 of Anaviratty Village in Devikulam
Taluk in Idukki District stands rejected for the reasons stated
therein. The said representation is one filed by the petitioners after
Ext.P1 judgment dated 15.11.2013 of the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.2090 of 2004, which was followed by Ext.P2 order
dated 29.01.2014 in R.P.No.50 of 2014, arising out of that
judgment. Ext.P4 representation was directed to be considered by
Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.03.2018 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.39322 of 2017. The further relief sought for in this writ
petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not
to allot/assign the land in question to third parties; and a
declaration that the petitioners are entitled to be allotted and
assigned the land as claimed in Ext.P4 representation, in view of
Ext.P2 order of this Court dated 29.01.2014 in R.P.No.50 of 2014.
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 5 2025:KER:16245
2. This writ petition along with the connected matters
were ordered to be posted before the Division Bench dealing with
matters relating to land in Munnar region, by the order dated
13.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge.
3. By the order dated 20.03.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024,
additional respondents 5 to 8 were impleaded. The said
respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 24.05.2024,
opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing
therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(d) documents.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader for
respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for additional
respondents 5 to 8.
5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ
petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P7
order dated 07.11.2018 of the 4th respondent, whereby the
request made by the petitioners in Ext.P4 representation dated
14.09.2017 for assignment of 99.61 Acres of land in Survey
Nos.229/1, 2 and 3 of Anaviratty Village stands rejected for the
reasons stated therein.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 6 2025:KER:16245
for the petitioners placed reliance on the provisions contained in
the Cardamom Rules of 1935, which deals with assignment of
Government lands for cultivation of cardamom, which was passed
by the Government of Travancore on 30.09.1935.
7. On the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, placing reliance on the provisions contained in the
Cardamom Rules of 1935, the learned Special Government
Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for
additional respondents 5 to 8 would point out the findings in
Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated
15.11.2013 in W.A.No.2090 of 2004. They would also point out
the dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos.6465-66 of 2016 filed by the
petitioners herein against Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench
and Ext.P2 order in R.P.No.50 of 2014, by Ext.R5(c) order dated
31.08.2017 of the Apex Court.
8. On the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government
Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for
additional respondents 5 to 8, we notice that the issues raised
before the Division Bench and considered in Ext.P1 judgment
dated 15.11.2013 in W.A.No.2090 of 2004 are as follows;
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 7 2025:KER:16245
"(i) Whether, despite coming into force of the Kerala Land
Assignment Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder, the
Cardamom Rules of 1935 will survive and the effect of
Section 9(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.
(ii) Whether any steps had been taken in terms of the
Cardamom Rules of 1935 and if so, whether it resulted in an
enforceable right in favour of Ouseph Varkey and the effect
of the order passed by the Tahsildar as well as the appellate
authority on Ouseph Varkey's application for assignment of
50 Acres of land and subsequently for assignment of 46
Acres of land.
(iii) The applicability of the Cardamom Rules of 1935 in
regard to the claim made by the petitioners."
9. Before proceedings further the Division Bench stated in
brief the factual situation in the case in clauses (i) to (iii) of
paragraph 4 of Ext.P1 judgment in W.A.No.2090 of 2004, which
read thus;
"(i) Petitioners are the legal heirs of Sri.Ouseph Varkey who
occupied government land and started cardamom
cultivation. He applied for assignment of registry in Form A
of the 1935 Rules. The application is Ext.P2 dated 378/1112
(M.E) (corresponding to the year 1937). The extent of land
sought for assignment is 50 acres. Subsequently, another
application is filed for assigning 46 acres in Sy.No.19/1.
Ext.P3 is the said application. Ouseph Varkey remitted
Rs.250/- and Rs.230/- along with the application. The claim
for additional extent of land was rejected by the
Commissioner, Devikulam and Sri.Ouseph Varkey filed an
appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The said
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 8 2025:KER:16245
appeal was allowed as per order dated 09.06.1939 holding
that the applicant is entitled for 49 acres of additional land
besides 50 acres of land in his possession. Ext.P4 is the said
order. In the meantime, the Travancore-Cochin State came
into existence. By virtue of the Government order dated
12.10.1940 it was held that a single applicant was eligible
to get only 60 acres on registry. Since Ouseph Varkey's
application was prior to the said Government order,
according to the petitioners, he was entitled to claim the
entire extent of land as assignments were made to similarly
placed persons as per Exts.P5 and P6.
(ii) Sri.Ouseph Varkey expired in the year 1956. When the
application submitted by Sri.Ouseph Varkey was pursued by
the petitioners, the District Collector, by Exts.P7 and P8
reported and recommended to grant assignment on registry
in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the Secretary to
Board of Revenue conducted an enquiry and by Ext.P9
report it stated that the appeal decision of the Land Revenue
Commissioner could have been implemented long before the
date of the Government Orders prohibiting registry of lands,
if the revenue officers have been more prompt in dealing
with the case.
(iii) According to the petitioners, they are entitled for
assignment of 99.61 acres of land and since nothing
happened in the matter over a period of time, this writ
petition is filed which resulted in Exts.P11 and P13 orders."
10. In Ext.P1 judgment in W.A.No.2090 of 2004, after
considering the rival contentions with reference to the relevant
statutory provisions, the Division Bench arrived at a conclusion
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 9 2025:KER:16245
that the Cardamom Rules of 1935, though not made under the
Travancore-Cochin Government Land Assignment Act, 1950, it is
deemed to be made under the 1950 Act, by virtue of Section 23
of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 (ME).
Hence the Division Bench held that the Cardamom Rules of 1935
is repealed by virtue of Section 9(3) of the Land Assignment Act
of 1950. The Division Bench found that the petitioners herein or
their predecessor did not acquire any right under the Cardamom
Rules of 1935 to claim a legal right capable of enforcement. Before
arriving at such a conclusion, the Division Bench found that until
the repeal of the Cardamom Rules of 1935, by virtue of Section
9(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Act of 1960, no orders were
passed in terms of the Cardamom Rules of 1935, for assignment
of registry. Therefore, the Division Bench concluded that the
petitioners herein or their predecessor did not acquire any right
under the Cardamom Rules of 1935 to claim a legal right, capable
of enforcement. The conclusion made by the Division Bench in
paragraph 23 of Ext.P1 judgment in W.A.No.2090 of 2004, reads
thus;
"23. Therefore, we are of the opinion that though two
applications for assignment of land were given by
Sri.Ouseph Varkey, no orders were passed by the competent
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 10 2025:KER:16245
authority under the '1935 Rules' enabling him to treat the
said order as a concluded contract between the parties and
therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to rely upon such
documents for claiming any right under the '1935 Rules'."
11. Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench was sought to
be reviewed by filing R.P.No.50 of 2014. That review petition filed
by the petitioners herein ended in dismissal by Ext.P2 order dated
29.01.2014. Paragraphs 3, 4 and also the last paragraph of that
order read thus;
"3. Having gone through the averments in the writ petition
as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court with
reference to the matter by which the case had been
remanded back to this Court, we find that all the issues,
which were germane for consideration in the appeal, have
been considered and no grounds are made out warranting
interference in the form of a review.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since
they were in possession of the property for a substantially
long period, though not under 1935 Rules, they are entitled
for assignment of land under the law applicable under the
present law. In fact, the learned Single Judge, while
dismissing the original petition, has observed that the
dismissal of the original petition will not stand in the way of
the petitioners in moving for assignment of land on lease for
cardamom cultivation under the 1961 Rules or for
assignment of land on registry under the Kerala Land
Assignment (Regulation of Occupations of Forest Lands Prior
to 1.1.1997) Special Rules, 1993. While confirming the
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 11 2025:KER:16245
judgment of the learned Single Judge, we expressed the
opinion that no grounds are made out to set aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge and we had only
dismissed the appeal. In that event, it cannot be said that
the petitioners are not entitled for the directions issued by
the learned Single Judge in the original petition. In the
result, the review petition is disposed of clarifying that
despite the dismissal of the writ appeal, the appellants will
be entitled to seek assignment of land under any other law
in force, if they are legally entitled for the same, including
the rules specified in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge."
12. In view of the categoric finding in Ext.P1 judgment of
the Division Bench in W.A.No.2090 of 2004, the petitioners herein
or their predecessors cannot claim a legal right, capable of
enforcement, under the Cardamom Rules of 1935, as they did not
acquire any right under the said Rules of 1935. While disposing of
R.P.No.50 of 2014 by Ext.P2 order dated 29.01.2014, the Division
Bench only clarified that despite the dismissal of W.A.No.2090 of
2004, the petitioners herein will be entitled to seek assignment of
land under any other law in force, if they are legally entitled for
the same, including the Rules specified in the judgment of the
learned Single Judge.
13. It is after Ext.P2 order dated 29.01.2014 of the Division
Bench in R.P.No.50 of 2014, that the petitioners moved Ext.P4
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 12 2025:KER:16245
rd
representation dated 14.09.2017 before the 3 respondent State
of Kerala seeking assignment of 99.61 Acres of land in Survey
Nos.229/1, 2 and 3 of Anaviratty Village in Devikulam Taluk. That
representation was directed to be considered, within a time frame,
by Ext.P5 judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.03.2018
in W.P.(C)No.39322 of 2017. A perusal of Ext.P4 representation
dated 14.09.2017 would make it explicitly clear that the
petitioners have not even mentioned any statutory provisions in
support of their claim for assignment of 99.61 Acres of land in
Survey Nos.229/1, 2 and 3 of Anaviratty Village in Devikulam
Taluk.
14. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative
Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can
be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed
upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of
that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief
function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties
prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and
officers exercising public functions within the limit of their
jurisdiction.
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 13 2025:KER:16245
15. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain
[(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ
of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the
party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some
statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the
Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of
mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of
Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr.
that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial
discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive,
specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law
upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such
duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy
and without which there would be a failure of justice.
16. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC
309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a
mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant
establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty
by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right
was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be
enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 14 2025:KER:16245
or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no
mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from
enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is
contrary to law.
17. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]
the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence
to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an
authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The
Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the
orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected
by law.
18. Viewed in the light of the laid down in the decisions
referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the direction
contained in Ext.P5 judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
27.03.2018 in W.P.(C)No.39322 of 2017 is one directing the State
Government to take a decision on Ext.P4 representation dated
14.09.2017 made by the petitioners herein, strictly in accordance
with the law, i.e., strictly in accordance with the statutory
provisions governing the field. Therefore, the direction contained
in Ext.P5 judgment would not enable the petitioners herein to seek
assignment of 99.61 Acres of land in Survey Nos.229/1, 2 and 3
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 15 2025:KER:16245
of Anaviratty Village in Devikulam Taluk, contrary to the statutory
provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960,
since this Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary
to law nor can this Court direct an authority to act in contravention
of the statutory provisions. As already noticed hereinbefore, in
view of the categoric finding by the Division Bench in Ext.P1
judgment dated 15.11.2013 in W.A.No.2090 of 2004, the
petitioners herein cannot claim a legal right capable of
enforcement under the Cardamom Rules of 1935.
19. Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioners herein
can only be considered under the provisions of the Kerala Land
Assignment Act, 1960 and the Rules made thereunder, i.e., Kerala
Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The learned Special Government
Pleader has pointed out the exemptions provided in clause (ii) of
Rule 1A of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, as per which nothing
contained in the said rules shall apply to or affect the assignment
of the Government lands made for the specific purpose of
cultivating Tea, Coffee, Rubber, Cinchona and Cardamom. The
learned Special Government Pleader has also pointed out the
maximum extent of land that shall be assigned for cultivation, as
provided under Rule 5 of the said Rules.
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 16 2025:KER:16245
20. The learned Special Government Pleader has also
placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court
in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government and others
[2007 (3) KHC 365] and the judgment of one among us [Anil K.
Narendran, J.], in Hidayathulla v. State of Kerala and others
[2021 (6) KHC 129].
21. In Hidayathulla [2021 (6) KHC 129] this Court
followed the law laid down by the Division Bench in Varkey
Abraham [2007 (3) KHC 365] that various provisions in the
Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and the Kerala Land
Assignment Rules would unmistakably show that the Act and the
Rules are intended to protect landless people by assigning to them
government lands for cultivation and other purposes. The Act
provides for assignment of Government land absolutely or subject
to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be
prescribed. The Rules provides for assignment of lands on registry
for purposes of personal cultivation. The Rules also provides for
granting assignment of small extents of land for constructing
houses and for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered
holdings. The Rules contain provisions for extending priority to
landless people, members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 17 2025:KER:16245
Tribes, Ex-servicemen, persons disabled in active military service,
persons who are dependents of those who are killed or disabled
while in active military service, small holders whose family income
is less than Rs.10,000/-, certain category of kumkidars, etc. The
procedure for assignment is also provided in the Rules. Provision
is made for preparing the lists of lands to be reserved for
Government or public purposes and the lands to be set apart for
assignment on registry. The lists are to be approved by the
Government or an authorized authority. The authority to approve
the list of lands available for lease or license shall be District
Collector. Various authorities are also provided to whom the
applications under the different categories are to be submitted.
We are of the view that the Act and Rules are not intended for
enriching persons who hold extensive lands. Assignment on
Registry of Government lands to such persons would defeat the
very purpose of the Act and Rules. There is no vested right in any
person to claim assignment on registry of Government land.
22. In the instant case, a reading of Ext.P7 order dated
07.11.2018 would show that during the course of arguments the
request made by the petitioners herein, who are siblings, is that
they should be assigned 99.61 Acres of land in Survey Nos.229/1,
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 18 2025:KER:16245
2 and 3 of Anaviratty Village in Devikulam Taluk, invoking the
provisions under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. After
considering Ext.P4 representation with reference to the provisions
under the said Rules, the 4th respondent arrived at a conclusion
that they are not legally entitled for assignment of the aforesaid
extent of land and accordingly rejected the said representation by
Ext.P7 order.
23. In the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench
of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment dated 15.11.2013 in W.A.No.2090
of 2004, the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and the
law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, we find no reason
to interfere with the said order passed by the 4th respondent.
In the result, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the
reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 19 2025:KER:16245
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26327/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA
NO.2090/2004 DATED 15/11/2013 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RP
NO.50/2014.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.16920/2001 DATED 28/07/2004 OF THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 14/09/2017.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.39322/2017 DATED 27/03/2018 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS COUNSEL BEFORE THE
DEPUTY SECRETARY-I, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 07/11/2018 ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P-8 A true copy of the RTI Reply dated
18.02.2022 together with its enclosures
issued by the Public Information Officer
of the Taluk Office Devikulam, being the
Deputy Tahsildar (B Section)
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R-5(a) True copy of the G.O(P) No.41/2002/SCST
DD dated 20/7/2002.
Exhibit R-5(b) True copy of the common judgment in
W.P(C ) 2026 and 20292/2014 dated
17/12/2015 .
W.P.(C)No.26327 of 2021 20 2025:KER:16245
Exhibit R-5(c) True copy of the Order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 31/8/2017 in civil
appeals 6465 and 6466/2016 .
Exhibit R-5(d) True copy of the Order dated 27/5/2025
in Complaint No.76/A3/2013/ IDK/KSCSCST
of the Kerala State Commission for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe,
Thiruvananthapuram.
