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. W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 7
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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 8 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 9 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 10 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 11 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 12 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 13 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. W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 14 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 15 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 16 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 17 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 18 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. W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 19
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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 20 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 21 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 22 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 23 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 24 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.W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 25
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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 26 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. W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 27
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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 28 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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 29 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.W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 30
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 W.P.(C).Nos.4012 & 23869 of 2021 31 2025:KER:33626 CONT.CASE NO.288/2021 IN W.P.(C)10663/2020