Kerala High Court
Sunny Thomas vs The Sub Collector on 6 May, 2025
W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 1
2025:KER:33626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4012 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SUNNY THOMAS
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. LATE VARKEY THOMAS, NADUVILEPARAMPIL VEEDU,
NELLADU, ERAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA THALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 542.
BY ADVS.
VARUGHESE M EASO
SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVALLA
THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 101.
2 THE TAHSILDAR(BHOOREKHA)
TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 101.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, KRISHIBHAVAN,
NEDUMPRAM P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 2
2025:KER:33626
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 645.
6 THE SECRETARY
NEDUMPURAM GRAMAPANCHAYATHU, NEDUMPRAM P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
T.P.PRADEEP, SC, NEDUMPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).23869/2021, THE COURT ON 6.5.2025
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 3
2025:KER:33626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23869 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SUNNY THOMAS
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. LATE VARKEY THOMAS, NADUVELIPARAMBIL VEEDU,
NELLADU, ERAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 542.
BY ADVS.
VARUGHESE M EASO
VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR
THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 101.
2 THE TAHSILDAR (BHOOREKHA)
THALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 101.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, KRISHIBHAVAN,
NEDUMPRAM P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 4
2025:KER:33626
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 645.
6 THE SECRETARY
NEDUMPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEDUMPRAM P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
7 THE SUB REGISTRAR
KADAPRA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KADAPRA P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 621.
8 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY,
CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 645.
9 SUNIL P. ABDULKHADER
PUTHUVATHRA PUTHENPURAYIL, NEDUMPURAM P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
0 ABDUL SAMAD
PUTHUVATHRAYIL, PROPRIETOR, SHAJI METALS AND
HARDWARES, NEDUMPURAM P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
11 CHACKO MATHEW
KOLLAKUZHIYIL, NEDUMPURAM P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
12 M.M.ABRAHAM
KOLLAKUZHIYIL, AMICHAKARI P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 113.
13 ZACHARIA PHILIP
VAMPATHU KARIMPIL, NEDUMPURAM P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, IN-689 110.
14 GEORGE VARGHESE
KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, AMICHAKARI P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT, PIN-689 113.
15 V.V.THOMAS
VAZHAKKOTTATHIL MEDICALS, VAZHAKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 5
2025:KER:33626
NEDUMPURAM P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 110.
ADDL.R16 VARGHESE CHACKO AGED 72,
S/O CHACKO, EDAPPURACKAL HOUSE, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA,
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R16 IN THIS WRIT PETITION AS
PER ORDER DT. 13.10.2023 IN IA 2/2023
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, NEDUMPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
R13 BY ADVS.BABY ANTONY
BABY ABRAHAM
GEORGE VALLAKKALIL
R16 BY ADV ARUNDAS
T.P.PRADEEP, SC, NEDUMPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
GP - RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).4012/2021, THE COURT ON
06.05.2025 THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 6
2025:KER:33626
VIJU ABRAHAM,J
------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
W.P(C) No.4012 of 2021 is filed challenging
Exts.P15 and P23 orders. By Ext.P15 the Village
Officer has taken a decision that the property having
an extent of 16 Ares comprised in Re-survey No.55/7
in Resurvey Block No.5 (Old Survey 229) of Nedumpram
Village in Thiruvalla Taluk is a paddy land. The said
finding in Ext.P15 was confirmed by the District
Collector by Ext.P23 order. It is to be seen that
pursuant to the issuance of Ext.P23 in WP(C) No.4012
of 2021 a Contempt of Court proceedings was initiated
by the petitioner as C.O.C. No.288 of 2022 which lead
to Ext.P24 judgment produced in W.P(C)No.23869 of
2021. Based on which revised orders in the place of
Ext.P23 order in WP(C) No.4012 of 2021 was issued as
Ext.P25 and therefore, it is challenging Ext.P25
revised order that W.P(C) No.23869 of 2021 is filed.
2025:KER:33626
Therefore, W.P(C) No.23869 of 2021 will be treated as
the leading case.
2. It is averred that the petitioner is a
retired employee of the Airport Authority of India.
The petitioner and his wife possess 16 Ares of landed
property, a coconut plantation, comprised in Re-
survey No.55/7 in Resurvey Block No.5 (Old Survey
229) in Thandapper 13640 in Nedumpram Village in
Thiruvalla Taluk. Petitioner purchased the said
property after availing a loan. After the purchase
of the property, Ext.P1 possession certificate was
issued in which the property is described as garden
land. Petitioner further submits that the said land
is having 30 year old coconut trees and is lying
adjacent to the Thiruvalla-Ambalappuzha State Highway
and there are so many commercial buildings situated
on the boundaries of the petitioner's property. It
is also contended that the stamp duty for 'garden
land having state highway access' was also paid being
the fair value fixed by the Government for
2025:KER:33626
registration of the document. In Ext.P2 title deed of
the property and the prior title deed Ext.P3, the
description of the property is as 'purayidam'. Ext.P4
is a land tax receipt which also show that the
property is classified as 'purayidam'. It is further
contended that the property is not included in the
data bank prepared as per the provisions of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008 as evident from Ext.P5 certificate and the
relevant portion of the data bank. Petitioner
submitted an application for building permit before
the 6th respondent local authority, the 6th respondent
insisted the petitioners to produce the possession
certificate in the name of the petitioner and his
wife, for processing the application for building
permit. Thereupon, petitioner submitted necessary
application before the 1st respondent to grant
permission for utilising 16 Ares of land for
construction of residential house. On the said
application as per the direction of the 1st respondent
2025:KER:33626
RDO, the 3 rd
respondent had submitted Ext.P6 report
along with a mahazar and the copy of BTR. Thereafter,
the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P7 possession
certificate, but the nature of the property was
entered as 'wet land' in Ext.P7. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing W.P(C) No.14175 of 2018, which was disposed of
as per Ext.P8 judgment directing the 1st respondent to
consider and pass orders on the application submitted
by the petitioner. As per the direction of this Court
in Ext.P8, Ext.P10 possession certificate was issued
wherein the property was shown as dry land instead of
wet land. Thereupon, on application Ext.P11 building
permit was issued to the petitioner. But when the
petitioner started construction of the work as per
Ext.P11 it was found that the level of the property
has to be raised to the level of the State Highway so
as to undertake the construction activity and
thereupon the petitioner attempted to fill up the
land with earth collected from other areas though
2025:KER:33626
contractors having valid permit and consequently
Ext.P12 request was made before the 1 st respondent to
grant permission for development of the land up to
the level of the state highway. While so, Ext.P13
stop memo was issued on the allegation that the
petitioner has violated the provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy land and Wet Land Act, 2008.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this
Court by filing WP(C) No.979 of 2020 whereby this
Court has set aside Ext.P13 and directed the
respondent as per Ext.P14 judgment to reconsider the
matter afresh. Without considering any of the
contentions of the petitioner Ext.P15 order was
issued by the 3rd respondent declaring that the
property belonging to the petitioner is a paddy land.
Aggrieved by the same, Ext.P16 complaint was
preferred before the 5th respondent District
Collector. As no action was taken on Ext.P16,
petitioner again approached this Court by filing
WP(C) No.10663 of 2020, which was disposed of as per
2025:KER:33626
Ext.P18 directing the 5 th
respondent District
Collector to take a decision on the request made in
Ext.P16. In compliance of Ext.P8 judgment, necessary
reports were called for and Exts.P19 to P21 reports
were submitted by the Tahsildar, Land Records, Local
Level Monitoring Committee as well as the Village
Officer, respectively. Ext.P22 report from the Survey
Deputy Director was also obtained. As no action was
taken, petitioner has approached this Court by filing
C.O.C. No.288 of 2021. Thereupon Ext.P23 order was
issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the request of
the petitioner. As Ext.P23 order has not in
compliance with the direction contained in Ext.P18
judgment, in C.O.C. No.288 of 2021, this Court in
Ext.P24 judgment recorded the submission of the
learned Special Government Pleader, Revenue that
fresh orders can be passed in this regard on the
application of the petitioner. But the 5th respondent
again rejected the request of the petitioner as per
Ext.P25. Petitioner submits that the said order was
2025:KER:33626
issued without considering any of the contentions of
the petitioner and the various reports submitted by
the authorities which are in favour of the
petitioner. Petitioner submits that the neighbouring
properties including that of respondents 10 to 15 are
similarly situated and they are enjoying the
properties as 'purayidam' on the strength of the BTR
records maintained by the 3rd respondent. Only the
petitioner has been discriminated. Petitioner submits
that the issue is covered in his favour by the
judgment in Indira P.S. And Others v. Sub Collector,
Fort Kochi and Another 2020 (4) KHC 33).
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been
filed by the 5th respondent supporting the impugned
orders. Essential contentions of the official
respondent have been summarised in paragraph 18 of
the counter affidavit as follows:
"18. On the basis of the joint
inspection, the assessment of the reports
submitted by the competent officers, evaluation of
the Village records and on the basis of the
hearing conducted and verification of the file
2025:KER:33626
records.
The following are the findings:-
1.The land in question is 'Nilam' as per
settlement register.
2.The resurvey the entry of 'Nilam Nikath
Purayidam' in BTR was over written and corrected
as 'purayidam', which is not on the basis of any
orders.
3.On site inspection, although there are coconut
trees, the site lying about 1½ meters below the
road level and appears to be waterlogged land.
4.Permission for building construction was
obtained by using Possession certificate issued on
the basis of wrong entry in Thandaper and BTR.
5.Only two type of entry are allowed in mentioning
the type of land in BTR. 'Nilam' or 'Purayidam'.
The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wet Land Act has been implemented to protect and
prevent the conversion and transformation of such
an order has been passed by the District
Collector on 02.09.2021."
4. I have considered the rival contentions on
both sides.
5. In Ext.P25, the final order rejecting the
claim of the petitioner, the reasons stated therein
are essentially the same reasons stated in Para 18 of
the counter affidavit, as enumerated above.
Petitioner purchased the property as per document No.
2025:KER:33626
39 of 2018 of S.R.O Kadapra. Before purchase of the
property Ext.P1 possession certificate was obtained
which shows that the property is a 'purayidom'. While
executing the sale deed, stamp duty was demanded
treating the land as "garden land having state high
way access" and later property was mutated and tax
was received as evident from Ext.P4 tax receipt,
wherein also the property has been classified as
'purayidom'. Admittedly, the property is not included
in the data bank also and the said aspect was
clarified by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P5
certificate. The fact that property is a purayidom is
also admitted by 2nd respondent in Ext.P6 report.
While so Ext.P7 possession certificate was issued
wherein the land was again classified as wet land.
The complaint of the petitioner against the same was
considered by the 3rd respondent in the light of
Ext.P8 judgment and Ext.P10 possession certificate
was issued wherein property has been again classified
as dry land. Based on the same, building permit was
2025:KER:33626
also issued. When the petitioner took steps to level
the land for construction of residential building,
Ext.P13 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer.
The same was challenged and the said stop memo was
set aside by Ext.P14 judgment and directed
reconsideration but again the property was treated as
paddy land as per Ext.P15. The same was challenged
and this Court by Ext.P18 judgment directed the
matter to be considered by District Collector and
later by Ext.P23 order, Ext.P13 and Ext.P15 orders
were affirmed. In the Contempt of Court case filed
as C.O.C No. 288 of 2021, learned Government Pleader
assured that fresh orders will be passed in place of
Ext.P23 and thereafter Ext.P25 order was issued
reiterating the very same stand taken in Ext.P23.
Even after issuance of Ext.P23, in Ext.P28 land tax
receipt, the property has been classified as
'purayidom'. In Ext.P30 thandaper account, the
subject property has been classified as 'purayidom'.
In the above said facts and circumstances, the
2025:KER:33626
sustainability of the orders impugned are to be
examined.
6. Admittedly, the property is classified
as 'purayidom' in the basic tax register. The
possession certificate obtained by the petitioner
before he purchased the property also classify the
property as 'purayidom' and the same has not been
included in the data bank also. As per Section 12 of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Act, 2008, the Village Officer can issue a stop memo
only in cases where the provisions of the Act 2008
has been violated. Admittedly, property is shown as
purayidom in the BTR and the same has not been
included in the data bank. This Court in Shanawaz
Mytheenkunju v. Village Officer, Keerikkad Village
2025 (1) KHC 447 has considered a similar issue and
held that the Village Officer is not empowered to
issue a stop memo when the property is shown as
'purayidom' in the BTR and the same has not been
included in the data bank. Paragraph 7 of the said
2025:KER:33626
judgment reads as follows:
"7. A perusal of Ext.P3 stop memo issued by the Village
Officer also would reveal that the Village Officer was
also aware of the fact that in the BTR, the property
has been classified as 'purayidom', but issued the stop
memo for the reason that in certain portion of the
property there was water logging and there is law and
order situation prevailing in the locality and till
orders are obtained from the revenue authorities, all
further activities in the property were directed to be
stopped. Section 12 of the Act, 2008 empowers the
Village Officer to direct any person to stop any action
which is in contravention of Section 3 or Section 11 of
the Act, 2008. Section 3 is regarding prohibition on
conversion or reclamation of paddy land and Section 11
deals with prohibition or reclamation of wetland.
Therefore, Section 12 empowers the Village Officer to
issue stop memo only if there is any activity
undertaken in illegal conversion of paddy land or wet
land. In W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2022, admittedly the
property, even going by Ext.P3, is a 'purayidom' as per
the BTR. The respondents have absolutely no case that
the property was subsequently included in the data
bank. In view of the fact that the property is a
'purayidom', I am of the view that the respondent
Village Officer has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue
a stop memo in the nature of Ext.P3. The other reason
stated for the issuance of stop memo including the law
and order situation and water logging etc., are not
reasons for invoking the power under Section 12 of the
Act, 2008".
7. One of the reasons stated in Ext.P25 to
reject the claim of the petitioner is that in the
2025:KER:33626
settlement register, the property has been classified
as 'nilam' and that after the re-survey, the entry
"converted purayidom" in the BTR has been converted
as purayidom which is not on the basis of any orders
issued in this regard. Admittedly, property is
included as 'purayidom' in the BTR. Ext.P22 report of
the Deputy Director of Survey addressed to the
District Collector would reveal that in the re-survey
it was found that as per the earlier records, the
property has been classified as 'nilam' and as per
resurvey records it is classified as 'converted
paddyland' and that such entry has been made based on
the nature of the land as on the date of resurvey.
Admittedly, there is no case in the counter affidavit
that the petitioner is in any way responsible for the
changes made in the BTR. This Court in Indira P.S.'s
case cited supra has held that description of the
land in the BTR cannot be disturbed merely because in
some old records like the settlement register, the
description of the property is shown otherwise.
2025:KER:33626
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment reads as
follows:
"8. Section 4 of the Act further mandates
that the arrangement under the Kerala Land Tax
Act, 1961 shall be general revenue settlement and
notwithstanding anything contained in any
enactment, grant, deed or other transaction, the
arrangement made herein for the levy of the basic
tax shall be deemed inter alia to be general
revenue settlement of the State. Section 20 of
the said Act confers power on the State
Government to frame rules. In exercise of the
power under Sec. 20 of the abovesaid Act, the
Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 has been statutorily
framed. Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules,
1972, mandates that a register called Basic Tax
Register shall be maintained in all Village and
Taluk Offices. By virtue of combined effect of
Secs.3 (3) , 4 and 5 etc., the land tax is to be
collected from the land holder concerned as
defined in Sec.3(3)(a). For that purpose, Basic
Tax Register has to be maintained in all Village
and Taluk Offices as per Rule 4. By virtue of the
non obstante clause in Sec.4 of the Act,
notwithstanding anything in any other enactment,
grant, deed or other transaction the arrangement
made as per the said Kerala Land Tax Act for the
levy of basic tax shall be deemed inter alia to
be general revenue settlement of the entire
State. Different tax rates are prescribed for
2025:KER:33626
garden land and paddy land etc,. The name of the
land holder and the nature of the property are
thereafter duly recorded in the BTR, after such
due process. Therefore the Basic Tax Register as
envisaged in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules,
1972 is a vital statutory document and hence the
entries in such a vital statutory document like
the BTR cannot be simply ignored by the competent
revenue officials concerned, so as to proceed
adversely as against the parties like the
petitioners merely on the ground that the old
settlement register shows the description of the
property otherwise. The said approach of the
respondents is against the scheme of the statutes
as framed in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and
the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972
9. That apart, it is the admitted case of
the respondents that it is after due survey and
inspection of the subject property that the land
was earlier classified as 'garden land' or
'purayidam', which is clearly recorded in the
Basic Tax Register in relation to the subject
property. Therefore, the said description in the
vital statutory document like BTR as per Rule 4
cannot be disturbed merely because of the
respondents find subsequently that there are some
old records like the old settlement register,
which show the description of the property
otherwise. The said approach of the respondents
is to say the least arbitrary and against the
statutory provisions and therefore it is illegal
2025:KER:33626
and ultra vires. "
In the light of the above, the above stated reasons
in Ext.P25 order to reject the claim of the
petitioner cannot be sustained.
8. Yet another reason stated is that eventhough in
the property there are yielding coconut trees, the
property is lying 1-1/2 meters below the road level
and waterlogged. This Court in Jessy Abraham. v. Land
Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, 2021(6) KHC
316 has categorically held that the low lying of the
land or the water logging in the property is not a
reason for treating the property as a paddy land. In
view of the above, the abovesaid contention also
cannot be accepted.
9. This Court take serious note of the fact that
the petitioner has filed C.O.C. No. 288 of 2021 after
passing of Ext.P23 order stating that the same is in
violation of the directions issued by this Court, an
assurance was given by the learned Special Government
Pleader that fresh orders will be passed on the
2025:KER:33626
application submitted by the petitioner,and got the
contempt of court case closed. But very same reasons
stated in Ext.P23 have been reiterated in Ext.P25.
One other important aspect to be noted is that
petitioner has purchased this property from his hard
earned income from the Service of Airport authority
of India and with a desire to construct a residential
building. Even before the purchase, documents were
verified and Ext.P1 possession certificate was issued
showing that the property has been classified as
purayidom. Admittedly, property is not included in
the data bank also. When Ext.P7 possession
certificate was later issued classifying the property
as wet land, the matter was reconsidered based on the
direction issued by this Court and Ext.P10 possession
certificate has been issued classifying the same as
dry land and based on the same Ext.P11 building
permit was also issued. It was at this stage, Ext.P13
stop memo was issued, which this Court has already
found that the same has been issued without any
2025:KER:33626
authority. The change in stand of the official
respondents after the petitioner has purchased this
property after verifying Government records itself
and being satisfied that the property is not paddy
land, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.
In view of the above, this Court is of the view that
exemplary costs ought to have been imposed on the
official respondents and only on the fervent request
made by the learned Government Pleader that this
Court is refraining from doing so.
In the light of the above, Ext.P15 and Ext.P23
orders in W.P.(C) No.4012 of 2021 and Ext.P25 order
in in W.P.(C) No.23869 of 2021 are set aside and is
declared that petitioner need not obtain any
permission under the provisions of the 2008 Act for
construction of the building in the subject property.
Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE
pm
2025:KER:33626
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4012/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.493/2017 DATED 27.9.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.39/02/2018 DATED
17.1.2018 OF SRO KADAPRA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.1022 DATED
7.12.2009 OF KADAPRA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL03050902152/2018 DATED 3.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.3.18 BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT
PAGES OF THE DATA BANK RELATED TO THE AREA OF
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.80/18 DATED 23.2.2018
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.30195317 DATED 5.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.4.2018 IN
WPC NO.14175/2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 1.5.18
ALONG WITH THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD
DATED 3.5.18.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.31819415 DATED 3.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.B1-
BA(234726)/2018 DATED 21.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 26.12.2019 BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE RDO PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2019 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
2025:KER:33626
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DATED 15.1.2020 IN WPC NO.979/2020.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.359/2019 DATED
25.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4.3.2020 BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 7.3.20 ALONG
WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 9.3.2020
FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DATED 1.6.2020 IN WPC NO.10663/2020.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.8.2020 FROM
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.8.2020 FROM
THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER NEDUMBRAM.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.8.2020 FROM
THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMBRAM.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 6.7.2020 FROM
THE SURVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.243305/20 DATED
6.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2020 IN
WPC 17463/2020 AND WPC 4888/2020 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2021 I
CONT.CASE NO.288/2021 IN W.P.(C)10663/2020
2025:KER:33626
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23869/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.493/2017 DATED 27.9.2017.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.39/02/2018
DATED 17.1.2018 OF SRO KADAPRA.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.1022/2009 DATED
7.12.2009 OF KADAPRA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL03050902152/2018 DATED 3.10.2018.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 27.3.18 BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAGES
OF THE DATA BANK RELATED TO AREA OF
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.80/18 DATED 23.2.2018
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6(a) TRUE READABLE TYPED COPY OF THE REPORT
NO.80/18 DATED 23.2.2018 ALONG WITH THE
MAHAZAR.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.30195317 DATED 5.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMPURAM.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.4.2018 IN WPC
NO14175/2018.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 1.5.18 ALONG
WITH THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED
3.5.18.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.31819415 DATED 3.5.2018.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.B1-
BA(234726)/2018 DATED 21.5.2018.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 26.12.2018 BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE RDO PATHANAMTHITTA.
2025:KER:33626
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2019 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DATED 15.1.2020 IN WPC NO.979/20.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.359/2019 DATED
25.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT ANNEXURES
DATED 4.3.2020 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 7.3.20 ALONG
WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 9.3.2020
FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 1.6.2020 IN WPC NO.10663/2020.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.8.2020 FROM
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.8.2020 FROM
THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER NEDUMBRAM.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.8.2020 FROM
THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMBRAM.
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 6.7.2020 FROM
THE SURVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.243305/20 DATED
6.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2021 IN
CONT. CASE (C) NO.288 OF 2021 IN WPC NO.10663
OF 2020.
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4-243305/2020 DATED
2.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P26 PHOTOGRAPHS RELATED TO THE PROPERTIES BELONGS
TO THE RESPONDENTS 10 TO 15.
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE BTR RECORDS RELATED TO THE
PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN SURVEY NUMBERS
2025:KER:33626
568,569,570 AND 571 IN NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE.
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL03050902216 DATED 2.7.2021.
Exhibit P29 PHOTOGRAPHS RELATED TO THE EXHIBIT P2
PROPERTIES BELONG TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.KL03050904902
DATED 11/08/2022 ALONG WITH REVENUE RECORDS
RELATED TO THE PROPERTY OF COCONUT PLANTATION
COMPRISING IN RE SURVEY NO.55/7 IN RESURVEY
BLOCK NO.5 (OLD SURVEY NO.229) IN THANDAPPER
13640 IN NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE IN THIRUVALLA TALUK
IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION GO (P)
NO 29/2022/TAXES DATED 30/03/2022.
Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNED APPLICATION DATED
16/02/2022 ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R13(1) TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 428/2015
OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE KDAPARA.
Exhibit R13 (2) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY NEDUMPURAM
VILLAGE OFFICE.
Exhibit R13 (3) TRUE COPY OF THE BTR REGISTER ISSUED BY THE
NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE
2025:KER:33626
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4012/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.493/2017 DATED 27.9.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.39/02/2018
DATED 17.1.2018 OF SRO KADAPRA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.1022 DATED
7.12.2009 OF KADAPRA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL03050902152/2018 DATED 3.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.3.18
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE
RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK RELATED TO
THE AREA OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.80/18 DATED
23.2.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.30195317 DATED 5.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.4.2018
IN WPC NO.14175/2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
1.5.18 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 3.5.18.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.31819415 DATED 3.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.B1-
BA(234726)/2018 DATED 21.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 26.12.2019
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RDO
PATHANAMTHITTA.
2025:KER:33626
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2019
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DATED 15.1.2020 IN WPC
NO.979/2020.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.359/2019 DATED
25.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4.3.2020
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 7.3.20
ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED
9.3.2020 FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DATED 1.6.2020 IN WPC
NO.10663/2020.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.8.2020
FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.8.2020
FROM THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER NEDUMBRAM.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.8.2020
FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER,
NEDUMBRAM.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 6.7.2020
FROM THE SURVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.243305/20 DATED
6.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2020
IN WPC 17463/2020 AND WPC 4888/2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2021 I
2025:KER:33626
CONT.CASE NO.288/2021 IN W.P.(C)10663/2020
