S.J.Prasad vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 752 Ker

Kerala High Court

S.J.Prasad vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025

                                              2025:KER:51325




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

 WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947

                 CRL.MC NO. 6520 OF 2024

      CRIME NO.17/2015 OF VACB, KASARAGOD, Kasargod

         CC NO.15 OF 2022 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND

          SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THALASSERY

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

         S.J.PRASAD
         AGED 70 YEARS
         S/O.LATE KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE, PULIKUNNU,
         KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI. BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
         SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
         SHRI. GOVIND G. NAIR
         SRI.BALU TOM
         SRI.BONNY BENNY

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

         SPL PP RAJESH.A FOR VACB,SRPP REKHA.S FOR VACB.

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON 09.07.2025 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:51325



CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024
                                   2


                                                               CR
                            ORDER

Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025

Accused No.4 in C.C.No.15/2022 on the files of the

Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance),

Thalassery, arising out of crime No.17/2015 of Vigilance and

Anti-Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as 'VACB' for

short), Kasargod, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case

seeking quashment of the entire proceedings in the above

case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/

4th accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in

detail. Perused the documents placed by the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the relevant documents form part of the

final report.

2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

3. The prosecution case is that, on the basis of

a petition received on 06.07.2015 from Sri.K.M.Muhammed

Haneef, S/o.Abdul Rahman, Aged 47/16, Muttathody Village,

Alambady Kasaragod, regarding the illegal possession of

government land in Thalangara Village by private individuals,

a quick verification was conducted by the Vigilance & Anti-

Corruption Bureau, Kasaragod Unit and found that the

government land extending 3.68 acres was illegally possessed

by private individuals, Sri.Saji Sebastian, Sri M.Krishnan Nair,

Sri.A.Gopinathan Nair and Sri.S.J.Prasad (the petitioner

herein) with the connivance of government officials,

Sri.K.Sivakumar, the former Election Deputy Tahsildar,

Kasaragod; Sri.Cheniyappa, the former Tahsildar, Kasaragod;

Sri. Robin D'Silva, the former Sub Registrar, Kasaragod and

Sri.T.O. Sooraj IAS, the former Land Revenue Commissioner,

Thiruvananthapuram and the successor of Sri.Ganappayya 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

who had taken on lease the land from the State of Madras on

30.09.1903. The Quick verification report was submitted to the

Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, with the

recommendation to register a Vigilance case. As per the order

of the Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, vide order No.

E14 (QV3/15/KSD) 23405/15 dtd 15.07.2025, a vigilance case

was registered in Kasaragod Vigilance unit on this matter as

VC 17/15/KSD under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

'the PC Act' for short) and Sections 420 and 120B of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short)

on 16.07.2015.

4. Investigation of this case has been

conducted by Sri.K.V.Raghuraman and V.K. Prabhakaran who

were the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kasaragod

Unit and charge sheet of the case was filed by Sri.K.V. 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

Venugopal, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB,

Kasaragod. Investigation revealed that Sri.S.J.Prasad, the

petitioner herein, purchased 91 cents of land in RS Nos. 27/14,

28/02 and 27/13 of Thalangara village as per document

No.3867/09/I and also purchased 33 cents of land in RS

Nos.27/03 and 27/6 (in the statement filed by the Dy.

Superintendent of Police, VACB, RS No.27/06 is stated as

'27/10') of Thalangara village as per document No 3868/09/I.

5. While seeking quashment of the entire

proceedings, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has purchased

1.24 acres of land (91 cents + 33 cents) in RS Nos.27/3, 27/06,

27/13, 27/14 and 28/2 (in the statement filed by the Dy.

Superintendent of Police, VACB, RS No.27/06 is stated as

'27/10') of Thalangara village for valid consideration and

accordingly, the title holders executed two sale deeds in his

favour. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

further that as per Annexure A5, Patta No.224 was issued in

favour of the executants of the document and believing the Patta

and also after getting the legal opinion from CW24 to the effect

that the property was fit for sale, the petitioner purchased the

property. Therefore, the petitioner has no intention to commit any

crime as alleged by the prosecution. Referring to the charge, the

learned counsel for the petitioner argued further that the recitals

in the charge would not suggest any allegation of conspiracy at

the instance of the petitioner and in such view of the matter, none

of the offences otherwise would attract against the petitioner.

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further

that as per Annexure A2 order dated 09/2010, the District

Collector, Kasargod, passed an order holding that the above

properties are government land. However, when Annexure A2

order was challenged before the Commissioner of Land Tribunal,

the Commissioner set aside the said order. According to the

learned Special Public Prosecutor, the order 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

of the Commissioner in the appeal is now stayed by the

Government and the matter is pending for consideration.

Therefore, the quashment prayer is liable to succeed.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would

submit that Annexure A5 pattah is the outcome of the order

passed by the Land Tribunal, Kasargod, dated 30.04.1973 in

O.A.No.1299/71 in favour of Ammoo Poojary and thereafter, in

the appeal preferred by Ramesha Rao, before the Appellate

Authority, (Land Reforms) Kozhikode, as AA No.1041/73, the

order dated 30.04.1973 passed by the Land Tribunal was set

aside. Thus, in view of the provisions of the Kerala Land

Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLR Act' for

short), as on 01.01.1970, the property reverted back to the

Government and is continuing as the same. Therefore, the

sale and the purchase of the property, which is vested in the

Government, would attract the offences alleged against the 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

petitioner, for which trial is necessary. Therefore, quashment

could not be considered.

7. Coming to the allegation, it could be gathered

that the case was charge sheeted against the accused as A1 -

Sri.K.Sivakumar, the former Deputy Tahsildar (Election),

Kasaragod, S/o.Rama Rao, Aged 58/16, Kunjar House, Bela

PO, Kasaragod; A2 - Sri.M. Cheniyappa, the former Tahsildar,

Kasaragod, S/o.Vengappa, Aged 60/16, Anandanidhi House,

Kailasapuram, Udayagiri, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod; A3 - Sri.

Robin D'Silva, the former Jr.Supdt., District Registrar Office,

Kasaragod, S/o William D'Silva, Aged 50/15, Megen Cottage,

Beach Road, Achappa Shetty Line, Nellikkunnu, Kasaragod,

Former U.D.Clerk, Sub Registrar Office, Kasaragod; A4 - Sri.

S.J. Prasad, S/o.Krishna Bhat, Aged 62/16, Thuruthi House,

Pulikunnu, Kasaragod; A5 - Sri. Ananda Rao, S/o. C.Sanjeeva

Rao, Aged 90/16, No.703/Chitrapur Housing Society, 15th 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

Cross, 8th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560055; A6 - Sri.

Devidas Sanjeeva Chandavarkar, S/o.Late C. Sanjeeva Rao,

Aged 87/16, No.900, 1st floor, 6th Main, Kavalbyrasandra, New

extension, RT Nagar PO, Bangalore- 560032; A7 - Sri.Ashwin

G.Chandavarkar, Aged 45/2009, S/o.Gopinath Chandavarkar,

M 707, Brigade Gateway, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram

West, Bangalore-55; A8 - Smt.Manjula.J.C, Aged 66/16,

D/o.M.R.Honnavar and W/o.Jayanth.C. Chandavarkar,

Janapriya Havens, 2036, 7th block, G.K.V.K.P.O, Allala

Sandra, Bangalore-65 on 16.09.2022, and A9 -

Sri.B.Chandrashekara Adiga, Document Writer, Kasaragod,

S/o.B.Madhava Adiga, aged 44/16, Sreelakshmi House, S.V.

T. Road, Kasaragod.

8. Smt.Lalitha.S.Chandavarkar, D/o.C.Sanjeeva

Rao and W/o.Sri.S.J.Chandavarkar, No.703/Chitrapur Housing

Society, 15th Cross, 8th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore-

2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

560055; Rajarama Rao, Kavalbyrasandra, New extension, RT

Nagar PO, Bangalore-560032, Smt. Anupa.J, Aged 55/2009;

D/o.Late Gopinath. S. Chandavarkar, No. 606, Chitrapur Co-op.

Housing Society, 5th cross, 8th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore-

565055 who were arrayed as accused in the FIR stage died

during investigation stage and were deleted.

9. Charge levelled against the accused is that,

with the fraudulent intention of grabbing the government

property accused Nos.1 to 9 conspired with each other,

accused Nos.1 & 2 accepted the land tax for a period of 30

years with arrears with respect to 1.24 acre of government land

comprised in RS Nos.27/06, 27/13, 28/2, 27/14 and 27/3 (in the

statement filed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, VACB, RS

No.27/06 is stated as 27/10 and RS No.28/2 is stated as 27/2)

in Thalangara village on 19-08-2009. Accused Nos.5 to 8

handed over this property to accused No.4 by registering two 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

sale deeds with the assistance of accused No.3 and 9, thereby

caused to possess the property of the Kasaragod fort having

historical importance by private persons. Thereby accused

Nos.1 to 3 misused their official position, cheated the

government and caused illegal gain to the other accused

persons, including the petitioner. Thus, all the accused persons

committed the offence under sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC

Act 1988 and under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC.

10. Reverting to the factual aspects elicited,

petitioner herein who is the 4th accused in this case and the

allegation is that he had purchased 1.24 acres government land

situated in Thalangara village from accused Nos.5 to 8 with the

connivance of accused Nos.1 to 3, who are public servants, and

accused No.9 illegally claiming legal rights over the land and

illegally possessing the Government land by fraudulent means.

2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

11. Kasaragod Fort is a historically important

monument situated in the prime area of Kasaragod Town. It is

situated in RS.Nos.27 and 28 of Thalangara Village in

Kasaragod Taluk. It is stated that the Board of Revenue,

Madras, as per lease agreement dtd. 30.09.1903, has leased

out the above property on "Mulageni" to Sri. Ganapayya on

"ground rent". The "Mulageni" is the perpetual lease, heritable

and may be sub-leased by the "Mulagenidar" and the land

leased under "Mulageni" should not be alienated by the

"Mulagenidar".

12. Investigation findings concluded that the

board of Revenue Madras as per the lease agreement dtd.

30.09.1903 has leased out the land covering 5.41 acre in RS.

Nos.27 & 28 in Thalangara Village to Ganappayya. In 1906,

his son Narasimha Rao applied for Patta to the above land

and Board of Revenue Madras issued Patta as per file No. 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

DR.368/1906/1315 on 30.10.1906. In resurvey, these land

including the Patta No.224 in the name of Narasimha Rao as

Pattayadar later the ownership changed to his son Sanjeeva

Rao and daughter Rathna Bahi. Subsequently Sri. Sanjeeva

Rao, sub-leased the land to Sri. Ammoo Poojary by virtue of

rent bond dtd. 03.05.1956.

13. On 20.12.1971, Sri.Ammoo Poojary,

S/o.Batya Poojary, residing at Fort, Kasaragod Kasaba,

Kasaragod Taluk, filed an application before the Land

Tribunal, Kasaragod for Assignment of Landlord's Rights

(Janmam Right) under Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Reforms

(Amendment) Act 1969, for the land measuring 2.49 acres in

RS No. 27/6, 1.25 acres in RS No. 27/7, 0.15 in RS No. 27/10,

0.01 acres in RS No. 27/13, 0.58 acres in RS No. 27/14 and

0.32 acres in RS No. 28/2 in Thalangara Village (Total 4.80

acres).

2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

14. The Land Tribunal, Kasaragod, in the order

dtd. 30.04.1973, held that the petitioner, Sri. Ammoo Poojary,

is a cultivating tenant of the property scheduled under Section

72B of the KLR Act, though the right, title and interest of the

landlord in that property stand vested in the government on

01.01.1970 by operation of Section 72 of the KLR Act and that

the petitioner is entitled for the assignment of the same.

Hence, 4.80 acres of land in Kasaragod Fort was assigned to

Sri.Ammoo Poojary under Section 72(F)(5) of KLR Act.

15. Sri. Ramesha Rao, the respondent in the

above case, filed appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land

Reforms) Kozhikode as AA 1041/1973 under section 102 of

KLR Act, against the order of the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod in

OA No. 1299/71 did, 30.04.1973. In the appeal petition the

appellant Sri. Ramesha Rao argued that the disputed property

is government land granted to the great grandfather of the 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

appellant by the government on "Mulageni" and hence the

same was exempted from the purview of section 3 of the KLR

Act. The Appellate Authority, vide Judgement dtd. 25.07.1974,

allowed the appeal filed,by Sri. Ramesha Rao and dismissed

the order of the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod, holding that "the

transactions as per which the petitioners in possession is

exempted from the provisions of KLR Act by virtue of sections

3(1)(1) and 3(1)(12) and therefore the petitioners are not

entitled to maintain the application for purchase under section

72". Sri Ammoo Poojary had not filed any appeal against this

order.

16. Later, in the year 1987, ie, after a lapse of 13

years Sri. K Sanjeeva, S/o.Ammoo Poojary and others filed an

Original Suit as No.111 of 1987 before the Court of

Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod against the defendants Sri.

Ramesha Rao and others for a declaration that they are the 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

cultivating tenants in respect of the scheduled property of 4.80

acres in the aforesaid case and entitled to fixity of tenure

under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, that the plaintiffs are

entitled to ignore the order dtd. 25.01.1974 of the Appellate

Authority, Kozhikode in AA 1041/1973 and for restraining the

defendants from creating any documents in respect of the

properties or from interfering with the peaceful possession of

the properties etc. The Subordinate Court dismissed the suit

with costs observing that the decision of the Appellate

Authority will operate as res judicata. Since the said finding

has become final, vide judgment dtd. 31.10.1994 in AA

1041/1973. The said decree was challenged before this Court

vide SA No. 727/1997(c) which was also dismissed vide

judgment dt. 25.07.2006 upholding the Judgment of the trial

court referring the verdict of the Appellate Authority dtd.

25.01.1974.

2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

17. Sri. Ashwin. G. Chandavarkar, S/o Gopinatha

Rao, one of the legal heirs of Sri. C. Ganapayya, filed an

application to the Village Officer, Thalangara on 17.08.2009

requesting to accept basic tax for 2.44 acres of land in RS No.

27/6 pt, 0.58 acre in RS No. 27/14, 0.18 acre in 27/3 pt, 0.15

acre in RS No. 27/10, 0.01 acre in RS No. 27/13 and 0.32 acre

in RS No.28/2 (Total 3.68 acres). He forwarded the application

of Ashwin.G. Chandavarkar with his report on 18.08.2009 to

the Tahsildar, Kasaragod.

18. As per the direction of Sri.M.Cheniyappa,

Tahsildar Kasragod, K.Sivakumar Deputy Tahsildar Election

who was also the Charge Officer of Thalangara Village,

conducted an enquiry on the petition of Sri. Ashwin and

submitted a report to the Tahsildar. In the enquiry report it is

stated that the basic tax was not accepted for a long time due

to the litigations existed on the land and that Sri. Ashwin and 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

others are the legal heirs of the original pattedhar. It further

stated that as per the Adangal and 10-I Register the land was

registered in favour of Sri. Chandavara Sanjeeva Rao and all

judgments show that the encroachers have no manner of

rights over the land. The report recommended for acceptance

of basic tax in respect of the land in RS No. 27/6 pt (2.44 acr.),

27/14 (0.58 acr.), 27/3 pt (0.18 acr.), 27/10 pt (0.15 acr.),

27/13 (0.01 acr.) and 28/2 (0.32 acr.).

19. As per Document No. 3867/09/I sale deed in

respect of 58 cents in RS No. 27/14 ( Old Survey No. 9/12), 32

cents in RS No. 28/2 (Old Survey No. 9/2) and 1 cent in RS

No. 27/13 (Old Survey No. 9/2) (Total 91 cents of land) was

registered in favour of Sri.S.J.Prasad (Accused No.4) for a

consideration of Rs.12,01,000/-. As per Document No.

3868/09/I sale deed in respect of 18 cents in RS No.27/3 (Old

Survey No. 9/20) and 15 cents in RS No.27/10 (Old Survey 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

No.9/9) (Total 33 cents of land) was registered in favour of

Sri.S.J.Prasad (Accused No.4) for a consideration of

Rs.2,15,000/-.

20. It is true that CW14, who conducted the case

before the Land Tribunal and before the Appellate Tribunal, (after

taking work in Bangalore, stopped his practice in the year 2001),

was consulted by the petitioner as well as the prior owners,

seeking legal opinion and he had given an opinion that the

property could be sold. In fact, the legal opinion has no

significance and it is the duty of the petitioner to be beware while

purchasing property by tracing the previous title deeds to ensure

that the property offered for sale is a property for which the seller

has absolute ownership and title.

21. In the instant case, 1.24 acres of land (91 cents

+ 33 cents) in RS Nos.27/3, 27/06, 27/13, 27/14 and 28/2 (in the

statement filed by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, VACB, RS

No.27/06 is stated as 27/10) of Thalangara Village is evidently 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

government puramboke land since the tenancy of

Sri.Ganappayya, as per lease agreement dated 30.09.1903,

came to an end as on 01.01.1970 the property vested with the

government, in view of the operation of Section 72 of the KLR

Act. Knowing this fact fully well, on 20.12.1970, Sri.Ammoo

Poojary filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Kasargod,

for assignment of the landlord's right (janmam right) under

Section 4 of the KLR Act for a total extent of 4.8 acres in RS

Nos.27/6, 27/7, 27/10, 27/13, 27/14 and 28/2. As per order

dated 30.04.1973, the Land Tribunal, Kasargod assigned the

property in favour of Ammoo Poojary under Section 72(F)(5) of

KLR Act. Challenging the said order, Ramesha Rao filed an

appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms),

Kozhikode, as AA 1041/1973 under Section 102 of the KLR Act

challenging the order of the Land Tribunal in OA No.1299/71.

The Appellate Authority, as per judgment dated 25.07.1974

allowed the appeal filed by Ramesha Rao and set 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

aside the order of the Land Tribunal, holding that "the

transactions as per which the petitioners in possession are

exempted from the provisions of KLR Act by virtue of sections

3(1)(1) and 3(1)(12) and therefore the petitioners are not

entitled to maintain the application for purchase under section

72". Since no challenge raised against the said finding, the

appellate order has become final and accordingly, the property

thereafter remained as government land. It is true that after 13

years, in the year 1987, Sri. K Sanjeeva, S/o Ammoo Poojary

and others filed OS No.111 of 1987 before the Sub Court,

Kasaragod against Sri. Ramesha Rao and others for declaring

them as the cultivating tenants in respect of 4.80 acres of

property and the said suit was dismissed and appeal

therefrom, vide SA No. 727/1997(c) was also dismissed by

this Court on 25.07.2006. Thus the claim for tenancy over the 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

leasehold right on the basis of "Mulageni" lease deed was

found against by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate

Authority. Thereafter, the Sub Court as well as the High Court

also negatived the said claim. Thereafter, the persons who

claimed tenancy right and failed to establish the same as per

law, transferred the properties in the name of the petitioner as

per document Nos.3867/2009 and 3868/2009 and thereby

transferred government land in his favour. The pattah relied on

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, vide pattah No.224,

in fact, was cancelled by the order of the Appellate Tribunal

and therefore, the same has no legal existence. Since the

documents would show that the property owned by the

government, for which claim for tenancy was denied by the

competent authorities as well as the civil courts, was sold in

the name of the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer. In such

a case, it could not be held that the petitioner is innocent in 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

getting transfer of the government land from the other

accused, who do not have any title over the same. Therefore,

the prosecution materials are in abundance, prima facie, to

see the involvement of the petitioner in getting transfer of

government land in his favour and in such a case, trial is

absolutely necessary to find out the truth of the prosecution

allegations. Even though, in the final report, conspiracy is not

specifically alleged against the petitioner, the prosecution

records specifically would show conspiracy hatched by all the

accused. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner on

that point also would fail.

In view of the discussion, this petition is liable to fail.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with direction to

the trial court to proceed with trial of the case, as expeditiously

as possible.

2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to

the trial court forthwith.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr 2025:KER:51325

CRL.M.C.NO.6520 OF 2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & CHARGE BEFORE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE COURT, THALASSERY ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE DATED 25.01.2013 ALONG WITH THE TYPED COPY ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD DATED 30.10.1906 IN DARKASTH CASE NO.368 ON THE

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADANGAL EXTRACT AND 10I EXTRACT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, THALANGARA ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES DATED 05.03.2010 ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES DATED 05.03.2010