[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.S.Dhanesh vs The Sub Collector on 19 January, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.P.(C)No.26585 of 2019 1
2026:KER:3363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26585 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
P.S. DHANESH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN, PADIPPURACKAL HOUSE 50TH MILE,
BANGLAVUTHARA, MANKULAM P.O.
IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 565, MOB. 9446927059.
BY ADV SHRI.D.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR
DEVIKULAM, DEVIKULAM P.O.
IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 613.
2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
DEVIKULAM TALUK OFFICE,
DEVIKULAM P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 613.
3 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT
IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 001.
*4 ADDL.R4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
MANKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 565 [ADDL.R4 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 IN I.A.NO.4 OF
2024 IN W.P.(C)NO.26585 OF 2019].
**5 ADDL.R5. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. [IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 12.08.2025 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2025 IN
W.P.(C)No.26585 of 2019 2
2026:KER:3363
W.P.(C)NO.26585 OF 2019].
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI. JAFARKHAN, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.01.2026, THE COURT ON 19.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.26585 of 2019 3
2026:KER:3363
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The petitioner claiming himself as a resident of Mankulam
Village of Idukki District, filed this writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to complete the survey and
demarcation of the assignable plots mentioned in Ext.P5 order
dated 20.04.2016 in HRMP No.3939 of 2016 of the Kerala State
Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, and to declare
that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get surveyed the
assignable plot mentioned in Ext.P5.
2. According to the petitioner, he has been included in
Ext.P7 list of eligible claimants for getting assignment of property
under the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of lands) Act, 1971
('KDH Act' for short). The petitioner states that in an identical
matter, this Court rendered Ext.P1 judgment dated 12.10.2018 in
W.P.(C)No.33394 of 2018, fixing four months' time to complete
the survey work of assignable plots as a condition precedent to
grant patta to eligible claimants. In pursuance to Ext.P1 judgment,
the District Collector has issued Ext.P2 order dated 01.02.2019
2026:KER:3363
setting apart survey personnel to complete the work. Thereafter,
the Tahsildar concerned has issued Ext.P3 action plan fixing 29
days for survey demarcation work. However, the concerned survey
officials are sleeping over the aforesaid action plan, even though
the cost of survey materials mentioned therein had been given to
the surveyors and they have apportioned the same. It is also the
case of the petitioner that another eligible claimant approached
the State Human Rights Commission and obtained Exts.P4 and P5
orders dated 27.06.2016 and 20.04.2016, respectively, in his
favour. The petitioner further alleges that the local leaders of the
ruling political parties are the miscreants who are holding acres of
land in the name of their benamies obtained from the eligible
claimants. As per the KDH Act, such benamy holders will not get
patta in their favour, and therefore, they want to delay the process
and enrich from the failures of the Government officials. While
upholding the KDH Act, the Apex Court safeguarded the position
of eligible claimants and directed the State Government to grant
patta as per the scheme of the Act, and any violation has been
interdicted.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated
2026:KER:3363
11.11.2019, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and
producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R2(i) documents. To that
counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated
29.08.2019, producing therewith Exts.P8 and P9 documents.
Thereafter, along with I.A.No.1 of 2022, the petitioner has
produced Exts.P10 to P17 documents. Along with a memo dated
21.11.2022, the learned Senior Government Pleader produced a
copy of the provisional list and final list of eligible persons
prepared for the purpose of assigning the land. Thereafter, along
with I.A.No.1 of 2023, the petitioner has produced Exts.P18 to P21
documents.
4. The writ petition was subsequently listed before the
Division Bench dealing with matters relating to land in the Munnar
Region, based on the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated
03.04.2025, on the administrative side.
5. On 07.07.2025, when this writ petition came up for
consideration, this Court directed the petitioner to file an
application to implead the State of Kerala, represented by the
Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department,
Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001, as an
2026:KER:3363
additional respondent. Subsequently, on the application of the
petitioner, additional respondents 4 and 5 were impleaded in the
writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that in a writ petition filed by a similarly placed person, by Ext.P1
judgment dated 12.10.2018, this Court directed the respondents
therein, more particularly, the Director of Survey and Land
Records, to take necessary steps to finalise the entire survey
process without delay, preferably within a period of four months
from the date of production of a certified copy of that judgment.
However, the survey was not finalised. Similarly, another person
approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, wherein,
also a direction to complete the survey was issued by Ext.P5
proceedings dated 20.04.2016. The petitioner is one of the eligible
persons included in Ext.P7 list prepared for the assignment of land
under the KDH Act. Therefore, he is entitled to get the necessary
reliefs sought in the writ petition.
8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
2026:KER:3363
Pleader would submit that the KDH Act was enacted to resume a
large extent of Agricultural land for the purpose of distribution
among agriculturalists. After the introduction of the Act, an extent
of 70450.61 Acres of land was taken over from the Kannan Devan
Hills Company Ltd. under the orders of the State Land Board dated
29.03.1974. As per the Government order dated 19.02.1977, the
expert committee fixed the pattern of land and its utilisation.
Under the said scheme, a total extent of 5189 acres of land was
set apart for assignment to landless agriculturalists and
agricultural labourers. Out of the total area thus set apart for
assignment, an extent of 1336 hectares was surveyed and
subdivided into 1-hectare plots and distributed to the landless
during the years 1980, 1985 and 1996. Out of the balance extent
of 764 hectares, 600 hectares have been surveyed and subdivided
into 1200 half-hectare plots during 1998, and this is the area
notified for assignment. After completing the process of
identification of eligible persons, by Ext.R2(a) proceedings of the
District Collector, Idukki, dated 17.09.1998, a list of 1016 eligible
assignees was published.
8.1. The learned Senior Government Pleader further
2026:KER:3363
submitted that the petitioners herein, along with 66 persons, filed
O.P.No.24837 of 1999 before this Court, challenging the eviction
proceedings taken by the Government. By Ext.R2(b) judgment
dated 13.03.2008, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the
said original petition with a direction to the petitioner therein to
approach the Forest Settlement Officer for addressing their claim
regarding the property. On the basis of Ext.R2(b) judgment,
another writ petition filed by Sahya Haritha Sangham (the
'Society' for short), in which the petitioner is a member, was also
disposed of by Ext.R2(c) judgment dated 04.06.2008 in a similar
manner. Thereafter, the society filed another writ petition before
this Court claiming that the application filed by the members of
the Society for the assignment of land had not been considered by
the authority. The said writ petition bearing W.P.(C)No.1080 of
2013 was disposed of by Ext.R2(d) judgment dated 23.05.2013,
holding that the competent authority for the assignment of land in
the Mankulam area is the District Collector, Idukki, and the
proceedings have to be finalised by the said officer himself. It is
further directed that the District Collector, Idukki, to finalise the
applications stated as preferred by the parties concerned in
W.P.(C)No.26585 of 2019 9
2026:KER:3363
accordance with law, at the earliest, and at any rate, within four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. In the
writ appeal filed by the State against Ext.R2(d) judgment as
W.A.No.831 of 2014, by Ext.R2(e) judgment dated 31.07.2014, a
Division Bench of this Court issued certain directions. As per the
direction in Ext.R2(e) judgment, the respondents verified the
claim and inclusion of 150 members of the Sahya Haritha
Sangham in the eligibility list, and directed that the applications
submitted by them to be considered for assignment, subject to
the outcome of the survey under progress to determine the
boundary of Mankulam Sanctuary Area as per the notification
dated 16.05.2007 and determination as to whether the land to be
assigned as per the proceedings dated 17.09.1998 of the District
Collector, Idukki, falls within this boundary area. It was further
ordered that in case the land to be assigned falls within the
boundary of the Mankulam Sanctuary, then the assignment shall
be subject to the Forest Settlement process as stated in the Kerala
Forest Act, 1980, and after completion of the settlement process.
8.2. The learned Senior Government Pleader further argued
that, pursuant to the directions in Ext.R2(e) judgment, the District
2026:KER:3363
Collector, Idukki, passed Ext.R2(f) proceedings dated 17.12.2014,
rejecting the claim of the society. Challenging Ext.R2(f) decision
of the District Collector, the Society filed W.P.(C)No.4817 of 2015
before this Court, and by Ext.R2(g) judgment dated 22.11.2018,
this Court dismissed that writ petition. While dismissing the said
writ petition, this Court held that the dismissal of the writ petition
will not stand in the way of the individual members of the
petitioner Society approaching the Forest Settlement Officer with
an appropriate request on the strength of letters of allotment, if
any, granted to them. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner in Ext.R2(b)
judgment approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.19076 of 2018,
and that writ petition was dismissed by Ext.R2(h) judgment dated
22.11.2018. Challenging Ext.R2(h) judgment, the petitioner
therein filed W.A.No.2471 of 2018. By Ext.R2(f) decision, the
District Collector has negated the eligibility of the petitioner and
the same is not challenged in the writ petition. In Ext.R2(e)
judgment, the Division Bench of this Court found that the writ
petitioners' name does not find a place in the list of 1016 persons
finalised on 19.07.1998. From the said judgment, it is clear that
the claim of the petitioner regarding the inclusion of the name of
2026:KER:3363
150 applicants, including the petitioner, in Ext.R2(a) proceedings
dated 17.09.1998 of the District Collector is disputed by the
respondent, at that time itself. The learned Senior Government
Pleader pointed out the contradictions and additions in between
the list of eligible persons produced as per Ext.R2(i) and Ext.P7.
Therefore, according to the learned Senior Government Pleader,
Ext.P2 cannot be said as a genuine document. For all these
reasons, the petitioner cannot claim the reliefs sought in the writ
petition.
9. We have carefully perused the materials placed on
record and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. The
claim of the petitioner is that he, being a resident of Mankulam
Village and being included in Ext.P7 eligible list of claimants, he is
entitled to get the land in his possession surveyed and assigned.
Though the petitioner claims that he is in possession of assignable
land under the KDH Act, except Ext.P7 list, no other document has
been produced by the petitioner to substantiate his aforesaid
contention.
10. Admittedly, the land in question is situated within the
area wherein the KDH Act is notified as applicable by the
2026:KER:3363
Government. As per Section 1(2) of the Act, it came into force on
21.1.1971. As per Section 1(3) of the Act, it applies to the land
comprising the revenue village of Kannan Devan Hills in the
Devikulam Taluk. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of
possession of all lands situated in Kannan Devan Village in
Devikulam Taluk in the Government. Section 3 of the KDH Act
reads as under:
"3. Vesting of possession of certain lands. - (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject
to the provisions of sub sections (2) and (3), with effect on and
from the appointed day, the possession of all lands situate in the
Kannan Devan Hills village in the Devicolam taluk of the Kottayam
district shall stand transferred to and vest in the Government free
from all encumbrances and the right, title and interest of the
lessees and all other persons including rights of mortgagees and
holders of encumbrances, in respect of such lands, shall stand
extinguished.
(2) Nothing Contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in
respect of -
a) plantations, other than plantations belonging to
trespassers;
b) buildings. other than buildings belonging to trespassers, and
lands appurtenant to, and necessary for the convenient
enjoyment or use of, such buildings:
c) play-grounds and burial and burning grounds; and
d) the lands in the possession of the Central Government or any
State Government or the Kerala State Electricity Board.
2026:KER:3363
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of
so much extent of land held by a lessee under his personal
cultivation as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under
any law for the time being in force or any building or structure
standing thereon or appurtenant thereto".
11. Section 9 of the KDH Act deals with assignment of
such lands. The said Section reads as under:
"9. Assignment of lands- (1) The Government shall, after
reserving such extent of the lands, the possession of which has
vested in the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3
(other than lands, the possession of which has been restored
under section 4), as may be necessary for purposes directed
towards the promotion of agriculture or the welfare of the
agricultural population to be settled on such lands, assign on
registry the remaining lands to agriculturists and agricultural
labourers in such manner, on such terms and subject to such
conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed.
(2) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, delegate
their power of assignment under sub-section (1) to the Collector,
subject to such restrictions and control as may be specified in the
notification."
12. A reading of Section 9(2) of the KDH Act would make
it clear that the power to assign the land vested in the Government
under the provisions of the said Act is on the Government and
such power can be delegated by notification in the Gazette to the
District Collector. If the property is part of the vested land under
the KDH Act, necessarily the provisions of the KDH Act and Rules
2026:KER:3363
made thereunder would apply for the assignment of the said land.
From Section 3 of the KDH Act, it is evident that a person in
possession of land in KDH Village has no vested right to claim
assignment of land, as in the case of the Kerala Government Land
Assignment Act 1960. Though the petitioner claims that he is
included in Ext.P7 list of eligible persons prepared by the
Government to get the assignment of land. But, Ext.R2(i) list
produced from the side of the Government, which includes the
name of 150 persons, including the petitioner, is not a replica of
Ext.P2. There are additions and deletions in Ext.R2(i) Moreover,
from Ext.R2(e) judgment itself it can be gathered that the
respondents have disputed the claim of the inclusion of 150
persons in Ext.R2(a) proceedings of the District Collector dated
17.09.1998 and this Court in that judgment found that the names
of 150 members of the Society do not find a place in the list of
1016 persons finalised on 19.07.1998.
13. As already noticed herein above, by Ext.R2(f) decision,
the District Collector, Idukki, rejected the claim of the society for
assignment, in which the petitioner is also a member. Paragraph
1 of Ext.R2(f) decision of the District Collector is extracted
2026:KER:3363
hereunder:
"1. The members of the petitioner Society claim to have been
purportedly omitted from earlier allotments of land. They are not
included in any of the existing eligibility lists for assignment of
land in Mankulam. All the files relating to assignment of land in
Mankulam were verified and not even a single trace of evidence
regarding the inclusion of 150 members of Sahya Haritha
Sangham in any of the lists of eligible applicants for assignment
of land in Mankulam could be found out. The petitioner himself
admits that the list claimed to have forwarded by the District
Collector was not a signed one. He has no other documents to
prove that such a list was forwarded to the Government. The very
submission of application for assignment on 18.08.2014 itself
shows that the eligibility for assignment has not been verified at
any point of time. The communication relied by the petitioner in
establishing their eligibility denotes only the availability of land in
the area for assignment, subject to the completion of the Forest
Settlement process. In the circumstances, the claim of the
petitioners regarding their inclusion in eligibility list for
assignment in Mankulam is found to be without any valid basis
and is hereby rejected."
14. From the aforesaid paragraph of Ext.R2(f) proceedings
of the District Collector, it is evident that the claim of 150 members
of the society, wherein the petitioner is also a member, is decided
in negative. The said decision, though challenged in
W.P.(C)No.4817 of 2015, by Ext.R2(g) judgment, the said writ
petition was dismissed. Likewise, a person similarly situated as
that of the petitioner has filed W.P.(C)No.19076 of 2018 before
2026:KER:3363
this Court, and that writ petition was dismissed by Ext.R2(h)
judgment dated 22.11.2018. As rightly submitted by the learned
Senior Government Pleader, except Ext.P7 list, the genuineness of
which is challenged by the respondents, the petitioner has not
produced any other document in support of his claim of
assignment of land under the KDH Act and the corresponding
Rules.
15. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar as discussed above,
we find that the petitioner has not made out any ground to grant
the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
2026:KER:3363
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 26585 OF 2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
33394/2018 DD 12.10.2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY ORDER NO. G2-43066/2013 DATED
1.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACTION PLAN ISSUED BY THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.8.2016 IN
HRMP NO. 3939/2016 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.4.2016 IN
HRMP NO. 3939/2016 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE UNION OF INDIA NO.
996820976705.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE PERSONS FOR
ASSIGNMENT OF EXCESS LAND IN MANKULAM VIALGLE
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LR IDUKKI.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LR.J8 256643/16
DATED 17.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE
COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.13436/R3/2015/RD DATED
30.5.2018 DIRECTED THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO
CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2 A A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DATED 17.09.1998
EXHIBIT R2 B A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP
EXHIBIT R2 C A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.
NO.767/2004 DATED 04.06.2008.
EXHIBIT R2 D A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
1080/2013.
EXHIBIT R2 E A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.
831/2014.
EXHIBIT R2 F A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DATED 17.12.2014
EXHIBIT R2 G A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.
2026:KER:3363
EXHIBIT R2 H A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
EXHIBIT R2 I A COPY OF THE LIST PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.4817/2015.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.25-09-
2019 BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTHA BY THE 2ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.G2-4452/2020 DT.
6-07-2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT 22-06-2019 OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 23-
09-2019 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE - II TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2018
IN WP(C) NO.4817/2015.
ANNEXURE - III TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.19076/2018 DATED 22.11.2018.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.C1-4452/2020 DT.
NIL-08-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND
ITS COVERING LETTER NO.C1-6740/2020 DATED 15-
10-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER. NO.B2-3148/2021
DATED 04-02-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE - IV TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR DATED 19.06.2019.
ANNEXURE - V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR DATED 17.09.2019.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD SKETCH NO.6115 OF KDH
VILLAGE PERTAINING TO PETITIONER'S PLOT
NO.1236
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE BTR SHOWING RE-SURVEY
NO.115/2 OF PETITIONER'S PLOT RE-SURVEY
NO.115/2 OF PETITIONER'S PLOT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE - VI TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS)
NO. 141/2020/REV DATED 28.05.2020.
2026:KER:3363
ANNEXURE - VII TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C12-6079/06 DATED
15.11.2012 PRODUCED BY SRI. K KRISHNAN BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTA.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C12-6079/2012
DATED 17-01-2012 .SINCE THE PHOTOCOPY NOT
LEGIBLE, THE TEXT OF THE SAME IS FURNISHED
AS EXHIBIT P-18 (3) AND EXHIBIT P-18 (4)
Exhibit P-19 LETTER DATED 15-11-2012
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE - VIII TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER PRODUCED BY THE
RESPONDENT SOCIETY IN WA NO. 831/2014.
ANNEXURE - I TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR DATED 17.09.1998.
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-20 LETTER DATED 12-01-2015
Exhibit P-21 JUDGMENT IN WP (C) 26760 OF 2019 DT. 1-7-2021
