Valakkavu Granite (P) Ltd vs The Tahasildar on 18 January, 2019

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Valakkavu Granite (P) Ltd vs The Tahasildar on 18 January, 2019

The petitioner, which is a Company engaged in quarrying granite, claims title to 15 acres of land in Sy.No.364 of Mulayam Village, Thrissur District, which, according to the petitioner, is covered by 15 pattayams issued to original assignees of the land from 1978 onwards. The petitioner Company, which had purchased the property from the pattadars and their assignees has been conducting quarrying and connected activities in the 15 acres of land from the year 2003 onwards. The Company has obtained Exhibit P4 environmental clearance which is valid upto 31.5.2026. The 1st respondent Tahsildar issued orders cancelling two of the pattas which was challenged by filing W.P(C).No.2196 of 2017. This Court by Exhibit P10 judgment dated 7.3.2018 quashed the said orders of the Tahsildar. In the judgment, this Court observed that in the event of there being material to prove that there were no pattayams issued or if the petitioner has violated the terms of the pattayam, proceedings can be initiated by giving notice to the petitioner. It is stated that no such materials have been obtained by the respondents, whereas report of the Deputy Director of Survey. The information received under the RTI Act proves that there is no puramboke land within Mulayam Villlage. Going by the decision of this Court in WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 5 Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2018(2) KLT 369], title cannot be adjudicated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act which is intended only for eviction of unauthorised occupation from Government land. Title to establish it or to controvert it has to be adjudicated before a civil court. Exhibit P14 notice has been issued under the pretext that the petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied the puramboke land covered by Exhibits P6, P6(a), P7 and P7(a). The petitioner therefore challenges Exhibit P14 as illegal and contrary to the directions contained in Exhibit P10 judgment.

2. Heard Sri.A.V.Thomas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Ranjith Thampan.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in Exhibit P10 judgment this Court had considered the factual aspects of the matter and had come to the conclusion that the order of the Tahsildar, Thrissur was a contradictory one. It was found that the suggestion in the order was that Pattayam Nos.LA(P)625/MUM and LA(P).632/MUM were not issued by the Revenue Department and the pattayams were fabricated documents obtained with the assistance of an officer in the Revenue Department. It is therefore contended that further action taken to cancel the said Pattayams was a contradiction and that the order of the Tahsildar could not be legally sustained. However, it was made clear that nothing in the judgment WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 6 will stand in the way of the official respondents taking action for resumption of the lands in the event of there being material to establish that there were no pattayams or if the pattayams were actually issued to the assignees, the petitioner had caused violation of the terms of the pattayams so issued. It is contended that proceedings thereafter issued and the resumption of the land without reaching a conclusion that the pattayams relied on by the petitioner were fake is completely unsustainable.

4. The learned Senior Counsel relies on Exhibit P12 report of the Deputy Director Survey, Thrissur dated 14.7.2016 to contend that the entire property in Sy.No.364 had been assigned by proper proceedings and that land tax had been received in respect of the same. It is therefore contended that the argument that no pattayams had been issued as claimed by the petitioner is completely unsustainable. It is further contended that Exhibit P14 notice under the Land Conservancy Act is completely incompetent. Additional documents have also been produced by the petitioner in support of their contention that the property in question had been assigned to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner and that the originals of the Pattayams had been lost. It is stated that certified copies have been issued by the respondents themselves which would show that the petitioner had proper title on the strength of the pattayams so issued.

5. It is stated that the respondents did not have a consistent case WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 7 as to whether the Patta was fraudulent even before this Court while W.P(C).No.2196 of 2017 was being considered by this Court. It is contended that in view of the documents subsequently produced by the petitioner including all statutory permissions and licences, the respondents are not justified in contending that the Pattas are fraudulent. Exhibits P40 and P41 Pattas issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Thrissur on 18.3.1994 and 23.7.1996 are relied on to contend that Pattayams were being issued in Malayalam Forms during the said period when certified copies of Exhibits P6 and P6(a) had been issued to the petitioner. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Harrions Malayalam Ltd.'s case (supra), it is contended that where the petitioner raises a bona fide claim of title, no proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act can be taken against the property in question. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao [(1982)2 SCC 134], State of Rajasthan v. Padmavathi Devi [1995 Supp.(2) SCC 290], Rame Gowda (D) v. M.Varadappa Naidu (D) [AIR 2004 SC 4609], Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [AIR 2013 SC 565] and M.Sankaranarayanan v. Commissioner, Bangalore [(2017)13 SCC 661], it is contended that where the petitioner is in unqustioned continuous possession of a property, land conservancy proceedings cannot be taken especially in view of the fact that there is a bona fide claim of title. The decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P v. Zia WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 8 Khan [1998(8) SCC 483] is relied on to contend that a suit to establish title to land is not barred and that the civil court has to be approached where there is a dispute as to title. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Banerjee Memorial Club v. Taluk Tahsildar [2016(1) KLT 241 (DB)] is also relied on to contend that for initiating proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, it has to be considered whether the occupant was holding the land unauthorisedly. The decision of the Apex Court in M.Sankaranarayanan v. Commissioner, Bangalore [(2017)13 SCC 661] is also relied on to contend that the Government is estopped from raising a plea of fraud or forgery long years after the alleged fraud has been committed and after the Government has acted on the document in question. It is stated that the Apex Court has clearly held that fraud must be pleaded and proved and cannot be proceeded.

6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent. It is submitted therein that major portion of the reserve forest land in Sy.No.364 of Mulayam Village had been assigned to various persons for personal cultivation. It is stated that Rule 3 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 provides for assignment of land for three purposes, i.e., personal cultivation, household purposes and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. It is stated that quarrying operations in the assigned lands is against the provisions of the assignment. Directions had been issued by the Additional District WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 9 Magistrate to stop the quarrying operation and to cancel the Patta, if there is violation of conditions of the Patta. It is stated that the petitioner had approached this Court and that the factual aspects had been considered independently and it was found that no pattayams in respect of two extents of property had been issued as claimed by the petitioner. Exhibit R1(f) communication of the Deputy Director (Survey), Thrissur dated 29.11.2016 and a report of the committee constituted to enquire into the allegation of missing of the pattayam file are relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General to contend that Exhibit P12 communication issued by the Deputy Director (Survey) is also highly suspect. It is contended that no reliance can be placed on the said communication in support of the contention that the petitioner had proper title in respect of the two items of properties. It is stated that the allegation of fraud had been clearly raised by the respondents and in the absence of pattayam issued, the occupation of the petitioner over the two extents of property is clearly unauthorised and action is liable to be taken to evict such occupation.

7. It is further stated in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit as follows:

"8. The Tahsildar, Thrissur, after conducting investigation and the scrutiny of the documents dealing with the assignment of land in Survey No.364 of Mulayam Village found that the aforesaid 2 pattas (patta No.L.A(P) 625/MUM and LA(P) 632/MUM) are fabricated one. Moreover, the Additional Tahsildar reported that the out of 15 pattas, patta No.632 and 625/MUM WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 10 are not genuine and stated that the same had been created fraudulently with an intention to encroach Puramboke Land for the purpose of taking minerals. The report also revealed the fact that major portion of the quarry and the crusher unit had been conducted by the Company in the property covered by the said pattas. As per the Revenue records, Authority had issued altogether 623 pattas to different beneficiaries for agricultural/residential purposes. Last 2 pattas had been issued to one Sri.T.S.Vasu (patta No.622/MUM) and Sri.C.J.Joseph, S/o.Chalen Joseph (patta No.623/MUM).

9. In fact, the Revenue Authorities specifically pointed out the fact that, as per the Revenue Records, no patta had been issued after the patta No.623/MUM. Hence, the aforesaid 2 pattas were created fraudulently with the assistance of certain officials in the department for the purpose of encroaching Government land for conducting quarrying operation.

10. As a matter of fact, considering the inappropriate and illegal pattas, the District Collector, Thrissur issued a communication No.D2-9246/1996 dated 22.02.1996 to the Sub Registrar, Thrissur, wherein, it is directed the Sub Registrar not to process any transaction on the strength of pattas issued by the Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment) during the period since, 01.01.1996."

8. Exhibit R1(k), which is a scanned copy of the assignment register, is produced along with the counter affidavit and it is contended that the last patta issued as per the assignment register is Patta No.LAP.623/MUM and no Patta as claimed by the petitioner has been issued on the relevant dates, i.e., 20.6.1979 and 25.6.1979 respectively. It is stated that the original pattadar has repudiated the said Patta and an FIR has also been registered on 7.8.2018 on the WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 11 basis of the statement given by the wife of late Velu, the original pattadar in Exhibit P6(a). Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in A.P.Chengal Varaya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994)1 SCC 1), it is contended that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and any judgment, decree or other benefit obtained by fraud is a nullity and is not non est in law. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in A.A.Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others [(2007)7 SCC 482] and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and Another [(2010)2 SCC 461], it is contended that where an issue of encroachment of Government or forest land is alleged, more caution and vigil is to be exercised by all authorities concerned. It is further stated that the assignees of the original pattadar can have no right higher than what the original pattadar possessed and since the Patta was granted for the limited purposes as provided in the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, the petitioner cannot claim any right for utilising the Patta for any other purpose.

9. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side at considerable length. The entire case of the petitioner is built up on the strength of Exhibits P6 and P6(a) Pattas issued to their predecessors- in-interest. It is stated that Exhibits P6 and P6(a) are certified copies issued by the Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment), Thrissur on 16.2.1995. It is stated that these documents were obtained by the petitioner by due means under due process of law and that there was WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 12 no challenge against the same for long years. The property had been purchased by the petitioner Company from the assignees of the original pattadars. It is contended that possession certificates and environmental clearance had been obtained by the petitioner on the strength of the Patta and subsequent documents by which the petitioner claims title.

10. In the instant case, the issue raised by the parties is with regard to the fraudulent nature of two Pattas which are relied on by the petitioner to claim title over a portion of the property possessed by them. The petitioner is not the original Pattadar. They claim title through the assignees of the Pattadars. The State has a specific case before this Court that the two of the Pattas relied on by the petitioner are fraudulent. They rely on Exhibit R1(k) assignment register to contend that no such Pattas had been issued to the persons shown in Exhibits P6 and P6(a) as on the date as stated in the said Pattas. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Exhibit R1(k) is not a complete document and the respondents are unable to produce the original of Exhibit R1(k) before this Court for examination. It is also contended that the Pattas, in Exhibit R1(k) though numbered serially, are not issued in chronological order. It is stated that if the remaining portion of Exhibit R1(k) is produced, the Pattas issued as per Exhibits P6 and P6(a) would also be evidently included in the same.

11. While it is true that proceedings cannot be taken under the WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 13 Kerala Land Conservancy Act, when there is a bona fide dispute as to title over the property, the specific contention raised in this writ petition is with regard to the fraudulent nature of the Pattas. Where the State specifically contends that no such Pattas had been issued to the persons shown as assignees in Exhibits P6 and P6(a), I am of the definite view that what is raised by the petitioner cannot constitute a bona fide claim as to title. The petitioner has not been successful in producing the originals of the Pattas on which they base their claim. The documents produced by the petitioner along with the later IAs, would also show that the later transactions, i.e, Exhibits P15 and P24 are on the same dates, i.e., 19.12.1995 and there is an attempt to show that title has passed from person to persons before it vested with the petitioner Company. In all the transactions, it is seen that the Patta itself is shown as the prior title and there is no whisper as to any loss of the Patta and the production of any certified copy thereof. Exhibit P15 document contains specific recital that the original Patta has been handed over to the purchaser on the same. Exhibit P24 would also show that the Pattayam has also been handed over when the document was executed. There is no whisper that it is a certified copy of the Pattayams which have been handed over.

12. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that sufficient material has been produced before this Court to justify the contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not actually WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 14 possess title over two of the extents of property. Taking note of the pleadings and the materials on record, I find that the contentions of the respondents cannot be held to be baseless assumptions unsupported by any pleadings. It is for the petitioner, on being confronted with such allegations, to produce materials before the respondents to prove title over the property.

13. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the allegation as to fraudulent nature of the pattas cannot be said to be totally without any basis. It is for the petitioner to dispel the allegations raised as to the fraudulent nature of the Pattas. This is more so, in view of the fact that the Pattas are issued under the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 which specifically provide that it is for personal cultivation, household purpose or beneficial enjoyment of the registered holdings. The petitioner, who is admittedly an assignee to the property through successive transactions from the Pattadars, cannot claim any higher rights than the Pattadars themselves. Exhibit P12, by itself, cannot be relied upon to contend that the title was proper especially in view of Exhibits R1(f) and R1(g) which repudiate the same. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the proceedings impugned in W.P(C).No.18956 of 2018 are unassailable on the grounds raised. I am also of the view that the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The respondents are justified in taking action against the petitioner on the assumption that their title WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 15 to the property is suspect. It is for the petitioners to dispel the notions by means known to law. The petitioner shall be put on notice and appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are left open. W.P(C).No.18956 of 2018 is ordered accordingly.

W.P(C).No.15060 of 2018

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents to accept land tax from the petitioner. In view of the findings in W.P(C).No.18956 of 2018, no such directions can be issued. W.P(C).No.15060 of 2018 fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15060/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO:10/2003/ID DATED

14.1.2003.

EXT.P2:                     TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT
                            NO:11492/M3/2015 DATED 17.12.2015.

EXT.P3:                     TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO:61/2016-17

DATED 2.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR CRUSHER AND QUARRY.

EXT.P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO:118/2015-16 DATED 08.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR CRUSHER AND QUARRY.

EXT.P3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO:119/2015-16 DATED 08.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR CRUSHER AND QUARRY.

EXT.P3(C): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO:120/2015-16 DATED 08.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR CRUSHER AND QUARRY.

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO:70/2016 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 31.05.2021. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO:2196/17 DATED 7.3.2018.

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.03.2018.

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:82/18 DATED 17.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO:J31425/2016 DATED 14.07.2016.

WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 17

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18956/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G O(P) NO: 10/2003/ID DATED 14.1.2003.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT NO:

11492/M3/2015 DATED 17.12.2015.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO: 61/2016-17 DATED 2.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR CRUSHER AND QUARRY.

EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO:118/2015-16 DATED 08.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR CRUSHER AND QUARRY.

EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO:119/2015-16 DATED 08.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR CRUSHER AND QUARRY.

EXHIBIT P3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO:120/2015-16 DATED 08.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR CRUSHER AND QUARRY.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO: 70/2016 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 31.05.2021.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:C-5/29506/16(2) DATED 22.12.2016.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTYAM NO.LA(P) 625/MUM DATED 16.12.1995.

EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO.LA(P) 632/MUM DATED 16.12.1995.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.5776/2008 DATED 10.11.2008.

EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO. 5774/2008 DATED 10.11.2008.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF TITLE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO: 1507/15.

EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO: 6823277 DATED 07.05.2016.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 18 ADDL. TAHSILDHAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1296/2017 DATED 07.03.2018.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.82/18 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAYAM DATED 17.04.2018. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO: J3.1425/2016 DATED 14.07.2016.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION AND RTI REPLY NO. 2/18 DATED 04.04.2018.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO: B2/12490/16 DATED 30.05.2018.

EXHIBIT-15 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.7151/1995 OF KUTTANALLOOR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE EXECUTED BY UNNIMON AND GOPI IN FAVOUR OF PAUL.

EXHIBIT-16 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 3320/2000 OF KUTTANALLOR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE EXECUTED BY PAUL IN FAVOUR OF JOSE.

EXHIBIT-P17 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 4676454 DATED 2/9/2005 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006 BY JOSE.

EXHIBIT-P18 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.6089/2004 OF KUTTANALLOR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE EXECUTED BY JOSE IN FAVOUR OF JENNY JOHN.

EXHIBIT-P19 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6452461 DATED 8/4/2010 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2010-11.

EXHIBIT-P20 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6312711 DATED 10/5/2012 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2012-13.

EXHIBIT-P21 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6773621 DATED 18/4/2013 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.

EXHIBIT-P22 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6483967 DATED 27/5/2014 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2014-15.

EXHIBIT-P23 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6687168 DATED 24/4/2015 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 19 EXHIBIT-P24 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.7128/1995 OF KUTTANALOOR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE EXECUTED BY VELU IN FAVOUR OF ALICE.

EXHIBIT-P25 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 3420337 DATED 24/6/2003 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2003-2004 BY ALICE.

EXHIBIT-P26 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 5452462 DATED 8/4/2010 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT-P27 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6312710 DATED 10/5/2012 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2012-13.

EXHIBIT-P28 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6773620 DATED 18/4/2013 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT-P29 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6483966 DATED 27/5/2014 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT-P30 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 6687167 DATED 24/42015 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT-P31 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT NO.

258/02-03/QP/GS/1256/C2/TDO/02 DATED 19/2/2002 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR IN RESPECT OF AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRE 82 1/2 CENTS IN SURVEY NO. 364/21/P, 22/P EXHIBIT-P32 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE AGREEMENT NO.1071/2003 OF KUTTANALLOORE SRO DATED 27/1/2003 IN RESPECT OF AN EXTENT OF 33.41 ARES IN RE-SURVEY NOS. 364/21 AND 364/22 IN MULAYAM VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT-P33 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE AGREEMENT NO. 1070/2003 OF KUTTANALLOORE SRO DATED 27/1/2003 IN RESPECT OF AN EXTENT OF 28.75 ARES IN RE-SURVEY NOS. 364/16-10. 364/16-

11. 364/16/12, 364/16-24, 364/16-28 AND 364/16-49 IN MULAYAM VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT-P34 TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT NO.

151/CRP/12-13/GS/298/C2/TDO/13 DATED 14/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 20 OFFICE, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P35 TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT NO.

99/CRP/13-14/GS/86/C2/TDO/14 DATED 18/2/2014 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P36 TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT NO.

13/CRPS/15-16/GS/1040/C2/TDO/15 DATED 9/6/2015 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P37 TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT NO.

153/CRP/12-13/GS/415/C2/TDO/13 DATED 14/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P38 TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT NO.

98/CRP/13-14/GS/85/C2/TDO/14 DATED 18/2/2014 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P39 TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT NO. 4/2015- 16/QP/GBS/C2/TDO/15 DATED 9/6/2015 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P40 TRUE COPY OF PATTAYAM NO. 94/94 DATED 18/3/1994 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P41 TRUE COPY OF PATTAYAM NO. 160/96 DATED 23/7/1996 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P42 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B-2-12490/16 DATED 25/7/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND PASTED ON THE DOOR AT ABOUT 3 PM ON 26/7/2018 EXHIBIT-P43 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.LRB-2/39/2016 DATED 16/6/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, THRISSUR, TO THE SECRETARY, NADATHARA GRMA PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT-P44 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12/2016 DATED 27/1/2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P45 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B2/12490/16 DATED WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 21 21/4/2018 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TO THE HEAD SURVEYOR, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT-P46 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 14/5/2018 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, THRISSUR, TO THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR EXHIBIT-P47 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.

28/17 DATED 5/1/2017 IN RESPECT OF 49-78 ARES IN SURVEY NO.364/21 IN MULAYAM VILLAGE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/1/1989 TO 4/1/2017 ISSUED BY FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, OLLUKKARA EXHIBIT-P48 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.

93/17 DATED 5/1/2017 IN RESPECT OF 49.78 ARES IN SURVEY NO.364/21 IN MULAYAM VILLAGE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/1/1979 TO 31/12/1988 ISSUED BY FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, OLLUKKARA EXHIBIT-P49 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.

29/17 DATED 5/1/2017 IN RESPECT OF 1 HECTARE 1 ARE IN SURVEY NO.364/21 AND 10.32 ARES IN SURVEY NO.364/22 IN MULAYAM VILLAGE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/1/1989 TO 4/1/2017 ISSUED BY FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, OLLUKKARA EXHIBIT-P50 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.

94/17 DATED 5/1/2017 IN RESPECT OF 1 HECTARE 1 ARE IN SURVEY NO.364/21 AND 10.32 ARES IN SURVEY NO. 364/22 IN MULAYAM VILLAGE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/1/1979 TO 31/12/1988 ISSUED BY FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, OLLUKKARA EXHIBIT-P51 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.OWNER PAUL BY THE RUBBER BOARD UNDER THE RUBBER PLANTATION DEVELOPMENT SCHEME IN RESPECT OF 38 ARES IN SURVEY NO.364/21 (COVERED BY PATTA NO.625).

EXHIBIT-P52 TRUE COPY OF INSURANCE CERTIFICATE NO.

58480 DATED 19/2/2017 ISSUED BY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF 38 ARES IN SURVEY NO. 364/21 (COVERED BY PATTA NO.625) UNDER MASTER POLICY NO.

570600/47/93/000251.

EXHIBIT-P53 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO. PD4/TR/A/96/476 DATED 21/3/1997 ISSUED TO THE PRIOR OWNER WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 22 ALICE BY THE RUBBER BOARD UNDER THE RUBBER PLANTATION DEVELOPMENT SCHEME IN RESPECT OF 44 ARES IN SURVEY NO.364/21 (COVERED BY PATTA NO.632).

EXHIBIT-P54 TRUE COPY OF INSURANCE CERTIFICATE NO.

58572 DATED 31/3/1997 ISSUED BY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF 44 ARES IN SURVEY NO.364/21 (COVERED BY PATTA NO.632) UNDER MASTER POLICY NO.

570600/47/07/93/000251.

EXHIBIT-P55 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY MAP ISSUED BY THE THASILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK, IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY SALE DEED NO.7128/95 (SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENT TO PATTA NO. 632).

EXHIBIT-P56 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY MAP ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAYAM AND TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR, IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES COVERED BY THE QUARRY AND CRUSHER UNIT INCLUDING THOSE COVERED BY PATTA NOS.625 AND 632.

EXHIBIT-P57 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/7/2018 SEEKING INFORMATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT-P58 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 2/8/2018 ISSUED FROM THE TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF PATTA AND FORM OF ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT OF REGISTRY IN PATTA NO. 622/MUM. EXHIBIT R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED BEFORE EXHIBIT R1(A) EXHIBIT R1 C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SUB REGISTRAR, OLLUKKARA. EXHIBIT R1 D A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BTR WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND IN SY.NO.364 EXHIBIT R1 E A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR DATED 13/4/2018 EXHIBIT R1 F A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY ON 29/11/2016 EXHIBIT R1 G A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON 21/3/2017 WP(C).15060 & 18956/18 23 EXHIBIT R1 H A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 5/6/2017 EXHIBIT R1 I A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SHO, TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT R1 J A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 4/8/2018 EXHIBIT R1 K A TRUE COPY OF THE SCANNED COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT REGISTER EXHIBIT R1 L A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 536/2018 DATED 7/8/2018 EXHIBIT R1 M A COPY OF THE STATEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE WIFE OF THE LATE VELU ON 9/8/2018

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court