Kerala High Court
Executive Officer vs C.K.Shaji on 28 February, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
Con.Case(C) No.75/2025 1 / 20
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 28th day of February 2025 / 9th Phalguna, 1946
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 75 OF 2025(S) IN WP(C) 26090/2024
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2:
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIRACKAL KOVILAKAM DEVASWOM,
P.O.CHIRACKAL, KANNUR, PIN - 670 011.
BY ADVOCATE SRI. MAHESH V. RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1:
C.K. SHAJI, DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), LAND TRIBUNAL,
KANNUR, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE ROAD,
KANNUR - 670 002.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
28.02.2025, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
Con.Case(C) No.75/2025 2 / 20
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Con.Case(C)No.75 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2025
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This contempt case is one filed by the 2nd respondent in
W.P.(C)No.26090 of 2024, alleging willful disobedience of the
directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court dated
30.07.2024 in W.P.(C)No.26090 of 2024. That writ petition was
one filed by Malabar Timbers and Saw Mill Company Pvt. Ltd. -
writ petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the
Deputy Collector (LR), Land Tribunal, Kannur, the respondent
herein, to dispose of S.M.Proceedings No.115 of 2017 for issuance
of purchase certificate in respect of 2.56 Acres of land in
Re.Sy.Nos.4/1B (wrongly typed as 4/18 in the writ petition), 4/2
and 14/1 of Valapattanam Village, covered by a land tax receipt
dated 15.01.2022 (Ext.P1) issued by the Village Officer,
Valapattanam, and encumbrance certificate dated 18.12.2018
(Ext.P2) issued from the Registration Department.
2. In Annexure-A1 judgment, it was noticed that though
it is averred in the writ petition that the writ petitioner became
tenant of the said property as per Registered Document
No.1758/1942 dated 31.08.1942, a copy of that document is not
placed on record in that writ petition. In S.M. Proceedings No.115
of 2017, the Executive Officer, Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom
was issued with a notice dated 25.08.2017 (Ext.P3). The sketch
dated 04.02.2017 (Ext.P4) of the property in question is one
prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, Kannur Taluk and the report dated
05.05.2017 (Ext.P5) is one prepared by the Village Officer. On
receipt of notice in S.M. Proceedings No.115 of 2017, the
Executive Officer, Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom entered
appearance and filed an objection dated 27.03.2023 (Ext.P6),
which was followed by a reply dated 20.12.2023 (Ext.P7) filed by
the writ petitioner.
3. By Annexure A1 judgment, W.P.(C)No.26090 of 2024
was disposed of by directing the Deputy Collector (LR), Land
Tribunal, Kannur, the respondent herein, to proceed with S.M.
Proceedings No.115 of 2017, strictly in accordance with law,
taking note of the specific directions contained in the decision of
this Court in Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala and others
[2023 (3) KHC SN 14 : 2023 (3) KLT 541]. In Annexure A1
judgment, it was made clear that before proceeding further, the
Deputy Collector (LR), Land Tribunal, Kannur shall obtain a report
from the Revenue Inspector and a copy of the same shall be
furnished to the writ petitioner and also to the Executive Officer,
Chirakkal Kovilakom Devaswom. Both parties shall be given an
opportunity to file an additional objection/reply, if found
necessary, and thereafter a final decision in the matter shall be
taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of
three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the
judgment.
4. Annexure A1 judgment of this Court is one rendered
after taking note the decisions in Prayar Gopalakrishnan and
another v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (1) KHC 536],
etc. and also the decision of the Apex Court in A.A.
Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC
482] and also the law laid down by this Court in Jayaprakashan
K. v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (3) KHC SN 14 : 2023
(3) KLT 541]. Paragraphs 4 to 11 of Annexure A1 judgment read
thus;
"4. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in
Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of
God in common parlance. See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan
and another v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (1)
KHC 536].
5. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board
[(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court held that the properties of deities, temples and
Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and
safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/
employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted
with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties
of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and
misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims
of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is
possible only with the passive or active collusion of the
authorities concerned. Such acts of 'fence eating the crops'
should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or
trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant
to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also
the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties
of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims
or misappropriation.
6. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair
[2013 (3) KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed
that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] the
Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to
protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the
religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles
under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always
treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points
of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High
Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from
the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act,
1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having
inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will
also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a
complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory
Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the
Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the
truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in
these proceedings.
7. In Nandakumar v. District Collector and others
[2018 (2) KHC 58] a Division Bench of this Court noticed
that the legal position has been made clear by the Apex
Court as to the role to be played by the High Court in
exercising the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction in
Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7
SCC 482]. The said decision was referred to and relied on
by a Division Bench of this Court in Travancore
Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT
132]. In the said circumstances, the properties of the
Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any
assignment/conveyance has been effected without the
involvement of the Devaswom, securing 'pattayam' or such
other deeds, the same cannot confer any right upon the
parties concerned, unless the title so derived is clear in all
respects. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to
retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by
resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land
Conservancy Act, 1957.
8. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin
Devaswom Board [2018 (3) KHC 549] a Division Bench
of this Court found that the task undertaken by the
complainant to ensure that the property of the Devaswom
is protected and preserved has ultimately brought out the
plain truth that the said property was sought to be
appropriated by strangers and that the property in
Sy.No.1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the
Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court
and also by the Apex Court in A.A. Gopalakrishnan
[(2007) 7 SCC 482]. Proceedings have to be taken to a
logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy.No. 1043 as
well. This is more so since in view of the 'parens patriae'
jurisdiction being entrusted with the Court in this regard,
there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every step to
ensure that the property of the deity is protected.
9. In Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala and others
[2023 (3) KHC SN 14 : 2023 (3) KLT 541] a Division
Bench of this Court, in which one among us (Anil K.
Narendran, J.) was a party, noticed that in view of the
provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963, nothing in Chapter II (i.e.,
provisions regarding tenancies) shall apply to leases or
tenancies of land referred to in clauses (i) to (xii) of the said
sub-section. As per clause (x) of sub-section (1) of Section
3, nothing in Chapter II shall apply to tenancies in respect
of sites, tanks and premises of any temple, mosque or
church (including sites belonging to a temple, mosque or
church on which religious ceremonies are conducted) and
sites of office buildings and other buildings attached to such
temple, mosque or church, created by the owner, trustee or
manager of such temple, mosque or church. In view of the
provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 74, after the
commencement of the Act, no tenancy shall be created in
respect of any land. As per sub-section (2) of Section 74,
any tenancy created in contravention of the provisions of
sub-section (1) shall be invalid. In view of the provisions
under sub-section (1) of Section 57, as soon as may be after
the receipt of the application under Section 54, the Land
Tribunal shall give notice to the landowner, the
intermediaries and all other persons interested in the
holding, to prefer claims or objections with regard to the
application. As per sub-section (2) of Section 57, the land
Tribunal shall, after considering the claims and objections
received and hearing any person appearing in pursuance of
the notice issued under sub-section (1) and after making
due enquiries, pass orders - (i) on the application, if any,
pending before it from the landowner or intermediary for
resumption in accordance with the provisions of Section 22;
and (ii) on the application for purchase under Section 54. In
view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72,
on a date to be notified by the Government in this behalf in
the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners
and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating
tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and holders of
karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 and
in respect of which certificates of purchase under sub-
section (2) of Section 59 have not been issued, shall, subject
to the provisions of this section, vest in the Government free
from all encumbrances created by the landowners and
intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the said date. In
view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72B,
the cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the
right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in
the Government under Section 72, shall be entitled to
assignment of such right, title and interest. As per clause
(a) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72B, no
cultivating tenant shall be entitled to assignment of the
right, title and interest in respect of any holding or part of a
holding under this section if he, or if he is a member of a
family, such family, owns an extent of land not less than the
ceiling area. As per clause (b) to the proviso to sub-section
(1) of Section 72B, where the cultivating tenant or, if he is
a member of a family, such family, does not own any land
or owns an extent of land which is less than the ceiling area,
he shall be entitled to the assignment of the right, title and
interest in respect of only such extent of land as will,
together with the land, if any, owned by him or his family,
as the case may be, be equal to the ceiling area. In view of
the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72BB, any
landowner or intermediary whose right, title and interest in
respect of any holding have vested in the Government may
apply to the Land Tribunal for the assignment of such right,
title and interest to the cultivating tenant and for the
payment of the compensation due to him under Section
72A. As per Section 72C, notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (3) of Section 72B or Section 72BB,
the Land Tribunal may, subject to such rules as may be
made by the Government in this behalf, at any time after
the vesting of the right, title and interest of the landowners
and intermediaries in the Government under Section 72,
assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants
entitled thereto, and the cultivating tenants shall be bound
to accept such assignment. In view of the provisions under
Section 72F, the Land Tribunal has to issue notices and
determine the compensation and purchase price. As per
sub-section (1) of Section 72F, as soon as may be after the
right, title and interest of the landowner and the
intermediaries, if any, in respect of a holding or part of a
holding have vested in the Government under Section 72,
or, where an application under Section 72B or Section 72BB
has been received by the Land Tribunal, as soon as may be
after the receipt of such application, the Land Tribunal shall
publish or cause to be published a public notice in the
prescribed form in such manner as may be prescribed,
calling upon the landowner, the intermediaries, if any and
cultivating tenant; and all other persons interested in the
land, the right, title and interest in respect of which have
vested in the Government, to prefer claims and objections,
if any, within such time as may be specified in the notice
and to appear before it on the date specified in the notice
with all relevant records to prove their respective claims or
in support of their objections. As per the mandate of sub-
section (5) of Section 72F, the land Tribunal shall, after
considering the claims and objections received in pursuance
of the notice issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
and the advice received from the village committee or
village committees before the date specified therefor and
hearing any person appearing in pursuance of the notice
issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and after
making due enquiries, pass an order specifying the matters
enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (5). As per
sub-section (1) of Section 72K, as soon as may be after the
determination of the purchase price under Section 72F or
the passing of an order under sub-section (3) of Section
72MM the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase
to the cultivating tenant, and thereupon the right, title and
interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in
respect of the holding or part thereof to which the certificate
relates, shall vest in the cultivating tenant free from all
encumbrances created by the landowner or the
intermediaries if any.
10. In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14] the
Division Bench, on an analysis of the aforesaid provisions
under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, found that the said Act
is a complete code by itself as far as the right of cultivating
tenant to fixity of tenure in respect of his holding, the right
of the cultivating tenant to get assignment of the right, title
and interest in respect of his holdings, the determination by
the Land Tribunal the compensation and purchase price and
the issuance of purchase certificate to the cultivating tenant.
The provisions under the said Act deal with the application
for the purchase of the landlord's right by the cultivating
tenant and the procedure for consideration of the application
by the Land Tribunal, with notice to the landowner, the
intermediaries, if any, the cultivating tenant and all persons
interested in the land, calling upon them to prefer claims
and objections, if any, and after making due enquiries.
Thereafter, the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of
purchase to the cultivating tenant. In view of the provisions
under the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, where the
Land Tribunal is of the opinion that an application for
purchase certificate has to be allowed, it shall, before it
passes an order under Section 57, prepare preliminary
findings on the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (m) of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 55. The Land Tribunal shall issue a
notice of its findings to the landowner, every intermediary,
etc., calling upon them to prefer in writings claims for the
purchase price or part thereof. On receipt of the objections
or claims, if any, the Land Tribunal shall consider the same
and decide the claims after giving reasonable opportunity to
the parties to produce such evidence as may be necessary
and then proceed to pass an order under Section 57 of the
Act. In such an order passed by the Land Tribunal on an
application filed under Section 54 of the Act by the
cultivating tenant for purchase of landlord's right, the Land
Tribunal has to record its finding that the applicant is a
cultivating tenant, as defined under clause (8) of Section 2
of the Act, who is entitled to fixity of tenure under Section
13 of the Act, in respect of his holding. The tenancy is not
in respect of land falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of Section
3 of the Act, which deals with exemptions. The tenancy is
not one created in contravention of the provisions of sub-
section (1) of Section 74 of the Act, i.e., it is not a tenancy
created after the commencement of the Act. It is well settled
that, when the statute requires to do certain thing in a
certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at
all. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly
and necessarily forbidden. The said proposition of law is
based on a legal maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio
alterius' meaning thereby that, if the statute provides for a
thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be
done in that manner and in no other manner, and following
other course is not permissible. The said proposition of law
about limitation of the exercise of statutory power has first
been identified by Jassel M.R. in the case of Taylor v.
Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch.D. 426], wherein it was laid down
that, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain
way, that thing must be done in that way, or not at all, and
that other methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden. The Privy Council applied the said principle in the
case of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor [AIR 1936 PC
253]. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union
(1971 (1) All ER 1148) Lord Denning, M.R. observed that
the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good
administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v.
Crabtree (1974 ICR 120) it was observed that failure to
give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live
links between the mind of the decision-taker to the
controversy in question and the decision or conclusion
arrived at. By the order dated 15.12.2021 in
W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020, this Court restrained all Land
Tribunals in the State from proceedings with any Original
Application filed before the appointed date or
S.M.Proceedings for purchase certificate in respect of
Devaswom lands of Temples under the control/
management of Malabar Devaswom Board, Travancore
Devaswom Board and also the Cochin Devaswom Board,
without the respective Devaswom Board, represented by its
Secretary, in the party array. In the said order, it was made
clear that a copy of the Original Application or the report
and other materials based on which S.M.Proceedings are
initiated shall be enclosed along with the notice issued to
the concerned Devaswom Board, through the concerned
Village Officer. The Land Tribunals were directed to afford a
reasonable opportunity to the concerned Devaswom Board
to raise its contentions, both legal and factual. It was made
clear that the decision taken by the Land Tribunals shall be
one reflecting the legal and factual contentions raised by
both sides.
11. In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14], in
continuation of the order dated 15.12.2021 in
W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020, it was ordered that, in the orders
passed by the Land Tribunals in the State in Original
Applications/S.M.Proceedings for purchase certificate, the
Land Tribunal has to record its findings that the applicant is
a cultivating tenant, as defined under clause (8) of Section
2 of the Act, who is entitled to fixity of tenure under Section
13 of the Act, in respect of his holding; that the tenancy is
not in respect of land falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of
Section 3 of the Act, which deals with exemptions; and that
the tenancy is not one created in contravention of the
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act, i.e., it
is not a tenancy created after the commencement of the Act.
In respect of temples which are controlled institutions under
Malabar Devaswom Board, the Land Tribunals shall take
note of the provisions under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as per
which any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease of any
immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for
the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void
unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being
necessary or beneficial to the institution."
5. On 24.01.2025, when this contempt case came up for
consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought
time to get instructions and file an affidavit by the respondent
Deputy Collector (LR), Land Tribunal, Kannur.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader has placed on
record an affidavit dated 10.02.2025 sworn by the respondent.
7. On 13.02.2025, when this matter came up for
consideration, this Court passed the following order;
"The learned Government Pleader has placed on record an
affidavit sworn to by the respondent.
2. Having perused the affidavit of the respondent and also
the submissions made at the Bar, we find that this is a fit
case in which further proceedings will have to be initiated
against the respondent.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit
that the respondent shall be personally present in Court on
the next posting date along with the relevant files and he
may be granted an opportunity to explain the facts and
circumstances.
4. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to list this
matter on 28.02.2025 at 4.00 p.m., for the appearance of
the respondent, along with the relevant files."
8. Today when this matter is taken up for consideration at
1.00 p.m., the respondent Deputy Collector (LR), Land Tribunal,
Kannur is personally present in Court.
9. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the affidavit dated 10.02.2025
filed by the respondent read thus;
"5. It is submitted that this respondent had adjourned the
case from 21.12.2024 to 27.12.2024. On 27.12.2024 an
objection in writing was filed on behalf of the Executive
Officer, Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom against the reports
submitted by the Authorized Officer and the Deputy
Tahsildar. Thereafter, the applicant and the respondent were
heard by this respondent. The respondent had found that
the reports of the Authorized Officer and the Village Officer
were made available in the files and the respondent
Devaswom has also filed its objection. This respondent on
the Order sheet recorded that the SM case is allowed on
27.12.2024. However, this respondent could not pass any
orders due to the heavy exigency of work in the office. This
respondent has been notified as Deputy Collector(LR) and
the Government has assigned the work of consideration in
Form 5, Form 6 and Form 9 under the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. This respondent is
also entrusted with the assumption of surplus land, land
transfer matter, granting of Government land lease, etc. As
is stated above, because of the heavy exigency of work, I
could not pass any orders in the SM application referred
above.
6. It is submitted that the applicant has filed contempt case
against this respondent stating that I have violated the
judgment by passing an order in violation of the judgment.
It is submitted that as stated I have not passed final order
in the above SM case. The Devaswom has alleged that the
records made available in the files were not given to the
Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom. The said allegation is not
correct as the copies of the available documents and reports
has already been provided to the Executive Officer of the
Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom. In addition to that the
Executive Officer of the Devaswom has filed written
objection against the report of the Authorized Officer, on
receipt of copy of the same from the office of the Deputy
Collector(LR).
7. It is further contended that the Authorized Officer has
submitted the aforesaid reports without conducting any site
inspection with notice to the parties. It is submitted that the
reports referred by the Devaswom were received in this
office even before I am taking charge of Deputy
Collector(LR) and Land Tribunal, Kannur. It is further
contended that the Devaswom was not given effective
opportunity of hearing before taking a final decision. Since
I have not passed any final order in the above matter. It is
respectfully submitted that I am ready and willing to
conduct site inspection of the subject property with notice
to the SM applicant and the respective Devaswom. A further
opportunity of detailed hearing will also be provided to the
applicant as well as the Devaswom. A final order will be
passed in compliance of the judgment only thereafter. It is
respectfully submitted that I could not pass the final order
in compliance of the order due to the reasons stated above."
10. After referring to the averments in paragraphs 5 to 7
of the affidavit dated 10.02.2025, the respondent would submit
that though he has recorded on the order sheet of
S.M.Proceedings No.115 of 2017 that S.M.Case is allowed on
27.12.2024, he has not passed a final order in the above matter.
The reports referred to by the Devaswom were received in the
office of the Land Tribunal, Kannur even before he took charge as
Deputy Collector (LR).
11. The averments in the affidavit dated 10.02.2025 filed
by the respondent and also the submissions made by the
respondent in Court would make it explicitly clear that the
respondent has made an attempt on 27.12.2024 to dispose of
S.M.Proceedings No.115 of 2017 openly flouting the directions
contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court dated
30.07.2024 in W.P.(C)No.26090 of 2024 and also the law laid down
by this Court in Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14].
12. From the submissions made by the respondent, who is
personally present in Court, we notice that the officer has no idea
about the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in
Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14] and that contained
in Annexure A1 judgment. The submission of the respondent is
that making an attempt to study the provisions under the Kerala
Land Reforms Act.
13. Section 99 of the Act deals with constitution of Land
Tribunal. As per sub-section (1) of Section 99, the Government
may, by notification in the Gazette, constitute one or more Land
Tribunal or Land Tribunals for any area or for any class or cases
specified in the notification, for the purpose of performing the
functions of the Land Tribunal under the said Act. As per sub-
section (2) of Section 99, the Land Tribunal shall consist of a sole
member, who shall be a judicial officer of the rank of a Munsiff or
an officer not below the rank of Tahsildar, appointed by the
Government.
14. List this matter for further consideration on 10.03.2025
along with W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020.
15. The personal presence of the respondent is dispensed
with for the time being.
16. Petitioner to file reply affidavit before the next posting
date.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV/29/2
28-02-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 75/2025
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-07-2024 IN
W.P.(C) NO.26090 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P1 in WP(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND REVENUE RECEIPT DATED
26090/2024 15/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAPATTANAM
Exhibit P2 in WP(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATED DATED
26090/2024 18/12/2018.
Exhibit P3 in WP(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
26090/2024 DATED 25/08/2017.
Exhibit P4 in WP(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN ISSUED BY THE TALUK
26090/2024 SURVEYOR DATED 04/02/2017.
Exhibit P5 in WP(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
26090/2024 05/05/2017.
Exhibit P6 in WP(C)
A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
26090/2024
Exhibit P7 in WP(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/COUNTER FILED BY THE
26090/2024 PETITIONER DATED 20/12/2023.
28-02-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
