Kerala High Court
The Secretary, Municipal Corporation ... vs R.Ranganatha Iyer on 25 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14943 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
BY ADV.
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 R.RANGANATHA IYER,
KOTTARAKONATHU MADAM, MRAA-158, KALLAMPALLY, MEDICAL
COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT
KARTHIK BHAVAN, LBSRA-314, SASTHRI ROAD, THIRUVAMKULAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305
2 VIDYA LATHIKA,
GOWREESANKARAM, TC 9/36(1), KATTUVILA, VALLUNNI,
MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
3 AMEER HAMZA,
TC 9/935(1), MRAB-264, KALLAMPALLY, MULAVOOR LANE,
SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017
4 ANANDAVALLY,
VIPANCHIKA, VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.PKRAC-20,
KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT), PIN -
695017
5 HARIKRISHNA,
VIPANCHIKA, VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.PKRAC-20,
KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695017
2024:KER:79798
W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 2
6 NAVANEETH KRISHNA,
VIPANCHIKA, VINAYAKA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.PKRAC-20,
KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695017
BY ADVS.
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM FOR R1
SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R3
SRI.S. SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM FOR R1
SRI.A.D.SHAJAN FOR R1
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 16.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).26595/2019, THE COURT ON
25.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79798
W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 26595 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
R.RENGANATHA IYER,
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O.SUBRAMANIA IYER, KOTTARAKONATHUMADOM, MRA A 158,
KALLAMPALLY, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695011, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KARTHIK BHAVAN, SASTHRI
ROAD, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682305.
BY ADV. SRI. S. SANTHALINGAM (SENIOR COUNSEL)
SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM
SRI.A.D.SHAJAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT (R AND A), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
5 CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695033.
2024:KER:79798
W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 4
6 KRISHNAN KUTTY,
VIPANCHIKA HOUSE, NO.PKRA-C-20, VINAYAKA NAGAR,
KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARIYAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695017.
7 VIDYALATHIKA,
GOUREESANKARAM, T C 9/36(1), KATTUVILA, VALLUNNI,
MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O.-695011.
8 AMEER HAMSA,
TC 9/535 (1), MRAB-264, KALLAMPALLY, MULAVOOR LANE,
SREEKARIYAM.P.O.-695017.
9 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.PREETHA K.K.FOR R1 TO R4 & R9
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL FOR R6
SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN, SC FOR R5
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION
SRI.S.VENUGOPAL FOR R6
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC FOR R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON,
16.10.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).14943/2023, THE COURT ON 25.10.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79798
W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 5
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
................................................................................
W.P(C) Nos.26595 of 2019 and 14943 of 2023
.............................................................................................
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
W.P(C) No.26595/2019 has been filed seeking implementation of Ext.P6 order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and also for a declaration that the excavation of the soil from the property of the petitioner by the adjacent owners, the party respondents, is illegal. The petitioner submits that he owns the property measuring 11 cents in Re- survey No.528/7. The adjoining slopping agricultural land on the southern side of the petitioner's property used for tapioca cultivation was owned by the 6 th respondent and due to the unauthorised excavation of the soil from the base of the petitioner's compound wall and old house to a depth of 20 feet by the 6th respondent, the owner of the adjacent property, a portion of the petitioner's compound wall collapsed to a depth of about 20 feet resulting in total damage to his compound wall leaving the old house in danger. It is alleged that the said incident occurred on 30.05.2010. It is further stated that the present owner, the 7 th respondent, refused to construct a strong retaining wall and when there was no response, he brought the matter to the notice of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and also filed an application before the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram and 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 6 their orders were not implemented by respondents 6 to 8 and that the 4 th respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, had directed respondents 6 and 7 to construct a strong retaining wall sharing the costs and with the option to submit a valid objection if any by 21.02.2018. As there was no response from respondents 6 and 7, the order passed by the 4th respondent on 09.01.2018 has become final. The claim against the 3rd respondent [the 8th respondent in W.P(C) No.26595/2019] Ameer Hamsa was given up.
2. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:-
a) Call for the records connected with the case.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary steps for the implementation of Ext.P2 order dtd.9.1.2018 of the 4th respondent.
c) Declare that the delay and laches on the part of the respondents 1 to 5 in the implementation of Ext.P2 order dtd.9.1.2018 of the 4th respondent is illegal and arbitrary.
d) Declare that excavation of soil from the property of the petitioners by the adjacent owners is illegal and arbitrary.
e) Pass such other orders as are deemed fit, fair, just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
3. The 6th respondent had filed a counter stating that his property was already assigned to respondents 7 and 8 as per the sale Deed dated 14.03.2006, Ext.R6(a) and therefore he had no manner of right over the properties in question. He also submitted that respondents 7 and 8 have already constructed granite retaining walls between their properties and the properties belonging to the petitioner and that the petitioner's property becomes waterlogged during rainy seasons and the compound wall fell on account of that. It is also pointed out that the writ petitioner had filed O.S.No.1255/2010 before the Sub Court-I, 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 7 Thiruvananthapuram for damages and Ext.R6(c) is the plaint in the said suit. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed O.S. No.1449/2012 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the 6th respondent and others to restore the lateral support, to restore the plaint schedule property to its original state and also to remove the danger to the plaint schedule property by constructing a retaining wall, etc. The true copy of the plaint in the said suit is marked as Ext.R6(d). It is stated that it is for the same relief that Ext.P1 complaint was filed before the 4 th respondent. Though the 4th respondent had passed Ext.P2 order, the same was challenged by the 6th respondent by filing Crl.M.C.No.6235/2018, wherein this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to hear the objections of the 6 th respondent as well and to pass orders. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed Ext.R6(e) and the 6 th respondent submitted that no further orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also pointed out that the writ petitioner had filed complaint No.460/2018 before the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions again regarding the very same issue. It is submitted that the pendency of the suit was suppressed by the writ petitioner in Ext.P1 complaint and having approached the civil court to redress his grievances on the same cause of action, the other proceedings initiated by the writ petitioner were unnecessary.
4. The writ petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent producing notice dated 08.09.2010 issued to the 6 th respondent, notice dated 26.11.2010 and also the notices dated 11.02.2011 and 03.02.2015 calling upon the 6th respondent to remedy the wrong done. It is also stated that the Secretary of 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 8 the Corporation had convened two meetings with notice to respondents 6, 7 and 8, to ensure that the remedial works are carried out by the 6 th respondent. The Executive Engineer had also submitted a report to the Ombudsman pointing out that at least an amount of Rs.1,24,000/- is required to complete the construction of the compound wall.
5. A statement has also been filed by the 5 th respondent Corporation contending that they had received a complaint on 15.06.2010 alleging that during the heavy rain in 2010, a portion of the compound wall of the property of the writ petitioner collapsed due to the removal of the earth by the 6 th respondent adjacent to the compound wall. The Corporation Council had directed the writ petitioner to approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs and the decision of the Council was duly communicated to the writ petitioner on 22.05.2017.
6. A counter has been filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate that a preliminary order was issued under Section 133(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code finding that the life and property of the petitioner were in danger due to the excavation of soil from the close proximity of the petitioner's property which had to be protected by constructing a retaining wall. It is after perusing the report of the Village Officer and objections that the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order 05.10.2019 directing remedial measures by approaching the competent civil court as the inference was that the dispute was of a civil nature and therefore there was no need to proceed further invoking the criminal procedures. It is also stated that the preliminary order issued need not be recalled or modified in 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 9 the backdrop of the civil suits pending and that a civil suit between the parties and that there is no public danger involved in the case and that the parties can redress their disputes collaterally or by seeking remedies from civil courts. It is also stated that it cannot be treated as an imminent danger to property or life in a dispute which has been prevailing since 2010.
7. W.P(C) No.14943/2023 is filed by the Municipal Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, Ext.P7 dated 14.06.2022, that directed respondents 2 and 3 in the complaint to reconstruct the boundary wall and if the respondents failed to do so, the Corporation was directed to construct the boundary wall and realise the amount from respondents 2 and 3. The said order of the Ombudsman is being challenged as without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 271 G of the Kerala Municipality Act. It is also stated that the Ombudsman is not vested with any powers under the statute to interfere in civil disputes between private parties or to compel the Corporation to construct a compound wall. Even though it was pointed out to the Ombudsman that civil suits are pending, the same was not considered by the Ombudsman while passing the order impugned in the writ petition.
8. It is admitted that the writ petitioner had earlier approached the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions by filing complaint No.316/2011, in which an order was passed on 10.03.2011. It is stated that the proceedings in complaint No.316/2011 were closed by proceedings dated 03.11.2015. As per the directions, the application of the complainant was disposed of by the Corporation 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 10 Council in 2017 and the matter was intimated to the complainant on 22.05.2017. It is thereafter that complaint No.460/2018 was filed before the Ombudsman, wherein the Corporation had brought to the notice of the Ombudsman that the civil suits were pending between two private individuals. The said complaint No.460/2018 was closed for non-prosecution on 27.12.2021 as per Ext.P5 order. Long thereafter the complainant filed a review petition in which the Ombudsman passed an order directing the petitioner to examine the boundary wall with the help of experts and to submit a report as per Ext.P6 order. In compliance with the said order, an inspection was conducted and a report was submitted stating that since the issue is between two private individuals, Corporation funds cannot be utilised for the construction of the compound wall in question. It is after receiving the said report, that a further order was passed on 14.06.2022 directing respondents 2 and 3 in the complaint to reconstruct the boundary wall. It is the said order that is challenged in the writ petition. The prayers in the writ petition filed by the Corporation are to set aside Ext.P7 and also to quash all proceedings in complaint No.460/2018 on the files of the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, by declaring the same as without jurisdiction.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. S. Santhalingam argues that going by the provisions of Section 414 of the Municipality Act read with Section 440, there is a duty on the Municipal Corporation to abate the nuisance caused by illegal quarrying. It is also submitted that the directions of the Ombudsman, were in the context of the corporation officials not taking further steps pursuant to the notice they issued, 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 11 which must be treated as maladministration, making the complaints before the Ombudsman maintainable.
10. On a reading of Sections 414 and 440 of the Municipality Act, it is clear that they cannot be stretched to an extent where the Corporation can direct one of the parties in a dispute between two private parties either to construct a compound wall or to direct such construction. Section 414 surely empowers the Corporation to stop quarrying if the same results in a nuisance and even to take steps to abate the nuisance, but it cannot be interpreted to mean that it had a duty to construct a wall to offer lateral support in a dispute between two private parties.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petition, Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, argues that the order of the Ombudsman, in the instant case, was illegal as much for the reason that the same was passed when the civil suits were pending as by the fact that the dispute between two private individuals could not have been settled through the proceedings before the Ombudsman. There could not have been any maladministration or charges of corruption against the Corporation officials for not constructing a compound wall in a dispute between private parties.
12. It is not in dispute that the claim of the writ petitioner in W.P(C) No.26595/2019 is made against private individuals regarding the demolition of the wall affecting the lateral support of the property of the said petitioner. Though Section 414 gives the Municipality the power to stop dangerous quarrying in case in the opinion of the Secretary, the working of any quarry or the removal of stone, 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 12 earth or other material from any place is dangerous to persons residing in or having legal access to the neighbourhood thereof or creates or is likely to create a nuisance, the Secretary may, by notice, require the owner or person having control of the said quarry or place to discontinue working the same or to discontinue removing stone, earth or other material from such place or make such order as he deems necessary for the purpose of preventing danger or abating the nuisance arise or likely to arise from such quarry or place. This power to the Municipality to stop dangerous quarrying cannot be enlarged to the extent of directing the Corporation to construct a retaining wall in a property separating two private holdings.
13. That apart, from the judgment in O.S. No. 1449/2012, a suit filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.26595/2019 (produced as Ext.R1(o) in W.P(C) No.14943 of 2023), the plaintiff writ petitioner contended that he reconstructed the wall by spending Rs.1,47,63/- and had also instituted a suit for damages with the third defendant, one Krishnankutty, who is respondent No. 6 in W.P(C) No.26595/2019. It was the contention that even after the institution of the suit the said retaining wall again collapsed and the same was reconstructed by the plaintiff at a cost of Rs.34,500/-. After an elaborate consideration including the commission report filed in the suit, it was found that due to the removal of the sand, the lateral support of the plaint schedule property belonging to the petitioner was badly affected which in turn affected the building situated therein. The writ petitioner was found entitled to get a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for. As regards the claim for damages, the same was not granted by the court holding that the claimant had failed 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 13 to prove his damages. A prohibitory injunction was granted against the defendants from digging the plaint B and C schedule properties and from further effecting any construction there, which endangers the lateral support of the southern boundary of the property and the house therein and from committing any act of waste in the plaint schedule property.
14. It is to be noticed that there was a claim for mandatory injunction made in the said suit to restore the lateral support and for constructing the B schedule retaining wall. However, the said relief was not pursued as the plaintiff/the writ petitioner obtained a favourable order on 14.06.2022 from the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, in OP. 460/2018 filed against the Corporation and the defendants therein. Accordingly, the plaintiff had filed a memo relinquishing the prayer for mandatory injunction. As regards the writ petition filed by the Corporation for the reasons stated above, a direction to the Corporation by the Ombudsman for putting up a retaining wall in a private dispute between two individuals cannot be justified. There is an added reason to hold that the proceedings before the Ombudsman were not maintainable because of the nature of the dispute and also the bar created under Section 271(M) which prevented any enquiry by the Ombudsman in a matter pending before a court. At the time when the Ombudsman was moved, the suits were pending. The Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions also cannot settle private disputes between parties and can act only based on an allegation/complaint/maladministration coming within the ambit of Section 271 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Under such circumstances, Ext.P7 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 14 impugned in W.P(C) No. 14943/2023 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed.
15. The direction to implement the orders of the RDO also cannot be acceded to at this distance of time, more so after the culmination of the civil proceedings between the parties. The power under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. can only be exercised to prevent the imminent danger concerning public rights for matters provided under Cr.P.C. and not for deciding property rights.
16. Ideally, the prayer for a mandatory injunction to put up the wall ought to have been considered by the trial court, but the plaintiff relinquished the said prayer because they had obtained orders from the Ombudsman for Local Self- Government Institutions. Since the rights of the writ petitioner/plaintiff were upheld by the Civil Court, the judgment in these writ petitions will not preclude their rights to institute appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court seeking a direction against the party respondents responsible for the collapse of the compound wall.
Subject to the above, W.P(C) No.26595/2019 is dismissed and W.P(C) No.14943/2023 is allowed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE okb/17.10.24 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 15 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26595/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.4.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MC.3/4/18 DATED 9.1.2018 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2018 IN CRL.M.C.NO.6257/2018 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.11.2017 RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.5.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.7.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.9.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 8/9/2010 WAS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/11/2010 WAS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/2/2011 WAS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/10/2015 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 17/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3/11/2015 IN COMPLAINT NO.316/2011 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 16 EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.983/2006 DATED 14.3.2006 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PATTOM EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 1529/2007 DATED 3.4.2007 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PATTOM EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 1255/2010 BEFORE THE SUB COURT-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25.10.2010 EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 1449/2012 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT-II THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.2.2018 2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 17 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14943/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.460/2018 Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.316/2011 Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2015 IN COMPLAINT NO.316/2011 BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS DATED 15.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2018 ON THE FILES OF OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2021 IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2018 BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2022 IN R.P NO.13/2022 IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2022 Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 IN R.P NO.13/2022 IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2018 Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 IN CMP NO.1/2023 IN COMPLAINT NO.460/2018 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 8/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 17/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2024:KER:79798 W.P(C) Nos.26595/19 & 14943/23 18 Exhibit R1(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/2/2016 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 16/4/2018 IN CMP NO.
71/16 IN OP 316/11 RECEIVED FROM THE OMBUDSMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION Exhibit R1(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/8/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 20/9/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 31/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.
Exhibit R1(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/5/2023 IN CMP NO.1/2023 IN COMPLAINT NO. 460/2018 THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
Exhibit R1(m) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/6/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION Exhibit R1(n) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PLOT FOR SALE 11 CENT Exhibit R1(o) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 9/12/2022 IN O S NO.
1449/2012 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit R1(p) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3/11/2015 IN COMPLAINT NO.
316/2011 OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit R1(q) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ULLOOR CORPORATION TO KRISHNAN KUTTY Exhibit R1(r) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/8/2009 IN WP(C) NO.
23332/2009 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA