Kerala High Court
Joju Joseph vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 12 November, 2019
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.14655 OF 2019(F)
PETITIONER:
JOJU JOSEPH
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARIYA PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
PVT. LTD., KARIKODE POST, JATHIKAMALA,
THALAYOLAPARAMBU-686610, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SHRI.ASIF N
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679322.
2 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., G-9, ALI YAVAR
JUNG MARG, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051.
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
THRIKKALANGODE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERANAD TALUK,
MALAPPURAM-676121.
4 ADDL.R4.BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
BHARATH BHAVAN, 4 AND 6, P.B. NO.688,
CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE,
MUMBAI-400 001.
R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.07.2019
IN IA NO. 3/2019.
5 ADDL.R5.K.G.THOMAS
S/O.GEORGE, AGED 72 YEARS,
KANNAMPILAVIL HOUSE, KOOMAMKULAM P.O.,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676123.
6 ADDL.R6. E.T.ISMAIL,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNJI MUHAMMED,
ELAYITHODI HOUSE, KOOMAMKULAM P.O., MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM - 676123.
W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 2
7 ADDL.R7. BINOY THOMAS,
S/O.K.G.THOMAS, KANNAMPILAVIL HOUSE,
KOOMAMKULAM P.O., MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM -676123.
R5 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
30.07.2019 IN IA NO.5/2019.
R1-3 BY SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR K.J., SPL.G.P. FOR
REVENUE
R4-5 BY ADV. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
R4-5 BY ADV. SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
SRI M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the Managing Director of M/s.Meriya Petroleum Products Pvt. Ltd., Karikode, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to issue a certificate certifying that the property having an extent of 5 Acres, situated in Survey No.236/2-3, 236/2-5, 236/2-6 of Thrikkalangode Village, Ernad Taluk in Malappuram District is garden land, as recorded in various revenue records in the office of respondents 1 and 3, in order to start construction of LPG Storage and Bottling Plant. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 1st respondent to issue him a 'nature of land certificate' in respect of the aforesaid land. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P10 application dated 14.05.2019 and issue a certificate to the petitioner certifying that the aforesaid property having an extent of 5 Acres is purayidam/garden land and not an agricultural land.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 4 petitioner has taken on lease the aforesaid property having an extent of 5 Acres on the strength of registered lease deed bearing No.4289/2018 of the Sub Registrar Office, Manjeri, for a period of 15 years from 14.09.2018. The said property, which is a garden land, was taken on lease for the purpose of starting LPG Storage and Bottling Plant, for the bottling of LPG cylinders of Government of India undertakings and for its transportation to various places. Relying on Ext.P1, P1(a) and P1(b) location certificates dated 18.09.2018 issued by the 3 rd respondent Village Officer, the petitioner would contend that the property in question is classified as garden land in revenue records. The document marked as Ext.P2 is the relevant extract of the Basic Tax Register maintained in Thrikkalangode Village Office, under Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, in which the property in question is described as purayidam/garden land. The property is classified as such in Exts.P3, P3(a) and P3(b) possession certificates dated 24.09.2018 and Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b) Thandaper Account Receipts issued by the 3rd respondent Village Officer; and also in Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) Basic Tax Receipts dated 19.05.2018 issued from Thrikkalangode Village Office. Placing W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 5 reliance on Ext.P6, which is a copy of the relevant page of the Data-Bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the rules made thereunder, the petitioner would point out that the property in question is a purayidam/garden land and it is not a paddy land or wet land.
3. By Ext.P7 tender notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., digitally signed and sealed (encrypted) E- Tenders were invited in Two-bid System; (a) Part-I Technical Bid with Commercial Terms, without Price-Bid; and (b) Part-II, Price-Bid; for bottling assistance from private bottlers having ready build plant/willing to construct a new LPG bottling facility with a maximum capacity of 30,000 MT per annum. As per the said notification those bottling plants are for Public Sector Undertaking Oil Marketing Companies, namely, Bharath Petroleum Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Indian Oil Corporation.
4. Pursuant to Ext.P7 tender notification, the petitioner submitted tender for undertaking the job of refilling of LPG cylinders as per the relevant standards under the statutory norms and applicable guidelines. Part II of Ext.P7 W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 6 tender notification deals with bidders willing to construct new bottling plant at the advertised location. The technical parameters of the land for constructing new bottling plant at the advertised location, specified in Part II, read thus; A.Technical (i) Land admeasuring at a. Self attested Copy of Clear least 3.5 Acres with Title deed in the name of either clear title owned bidder/Registered sale deed / by the Bidder AND/OR registered Lease deed for the have registered lease in land upon which the Bottling the name of the bidder, plant is constructed. AND/OR Firm Allotment b. Government land extracts letter from State Govt. from Revenue Department or State Govt. body c. Registered sale deed / situated in the Lease deed & other relevant "Advertised location" document to be attached for and willing to construct any additional land required LPG Bottling Plant as for expansion / up-gradation per OISD-169-A also.
guidelines on the d. In case of leased land, the offered land at his own Registered Lease agreement cost. should be valid for a minimum period of 11 years from the last date for submission of tender.
e. Date of registered sale/lease deed should be on or before the last date for submission of tender.
f. In case the land is already on long lease and the expiry is within the intervening period of contract, Undertaking as per attached format duly notarized shall have to be submitted by the bidder as per ANNEXURE - XVIII g. Valid Firm Allotment letter from State Govt./State Govt Body as on the Due date of tender.
(ii) The land of the plant a. Zone certificate from should be Industrial OR Revenue officer Commercial type and b. Government Land extract W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 7 Zone certificate issued from Revenue department.
by the competent Govt. c. Final Land conversion
authority shall be certificate to be compulsorily
provided. If Agriculture submitted before issuance of
land is offered, Work Order.
Acknowledgment of
application submitted to
concerned authorities
for Non-Agricultural
conversion required to
be submitted along with
Tender.
5. As per the technical parameters, the extent of land should be at least 3.5 Acres with clear title owned by the bidder or registered lease in the name of the bidder, etc. The land for the plant should be industrial or commercial type and Zone certificate issued by the competent Government Authority shall be provided. If agricultural land is offered, acknowledgment of application submitted to the concerned authorities for non-agricultural conversion is required to be submitted along with the tender. The documents required to be submitted online, along with the tender, are 'Zone Certificate' from Revenue Officer and Government Land extract from Revenue Department. 'Final Land Conversion Certificate' has to be compulsorily submitted before the issuance of work order.
6. Paragraph 8 of Ext.P7 tender notification deals with additional eligibility criteria. As per clause (iv) of paragraph 8, W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 8 the bidder has to declare that the site is free from any sensitive zones, schools and place of religious or historic importance which may get affected due to the construction of LPG Bottling Plant. Any liability for such cases, if identified even at later stage, shall be exclusively upon the bidder.
7. According to the petitioner, as the land in question was never converted from paddy land to garden land, a certificate to that effect was necessary from the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner submitted the tender, which was accepted during technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee and the financial bid opening was fixed on 27.03.2019. The price bid submitted by the petitioner was also accepted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., as evident from Ext.P8 tender summary report, in which M/s.Meriya Petroleum Products Pvt. Ltd. is Serial No.59. By Ext.P9 order dated 19.09.2018, the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, granted approval for the proposed LPG Bottling and Storage Plant located at the property in question, under the provisions of Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004, subject to the conditions enumerated therein. W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 9
8. In order to issue work order for the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling facility, by the 2nd respondent Deputy General Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the petitioner has to produce Zone Certificate from the Revenue Officer; Government land extract from Revenue Department; and Final Land Conversion Certificate or No Objection Certificate, stating that land conversion is not required as the land offered is dry land. The petitioner filed Ext.P10 application dated 14.05.2019 before the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, with a request to grant certificate to the effect that the land in question having an extent of 5 Acres is purayidam/garden land and not an agricultural land. He has also submitted Ext.P11 application before the 3 rd respondent Village Officer with similar request. Now the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking various reliefs, alleging inaction on the part of the revenue authorities in issuing the certificates, as sought for in Exts.P10 and P11.
9. A statement has been filed by the 1 st respondent, wherein it has been pointed out that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not authorised to issue Zone Certificate. An extract of the Basic Tax Register has already been issued to the W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 10 petitioner by the 3rd respondent Village Officer, which is placed on record as Ext.P2. The Revenue Divisional Officer is also not authorised to issue Final Land Conversion Certificate. Since the property is garden land, there is no provision to process the application made by the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. As far as no objection certificate is concerned, as per Gas Cylinders Rules, the competent authority for issuing no objection certificate for LPG Storage and Bottling Plant is the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate. Upon receipt of Ext.P10 application, the 1 st respondent forwarded the same to the Tahsildar, Ernad for getting a report, along with connected land documents. Since the application is in respect of the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant, it was forwarded to the District Magistrate for further action. However, the District Magistrate sent it back, stating that it deals with conversion of land, since the request made in that application is for Land Conversion Certificate. In the meanwhile, a complaint by Janakeeya Prathirodha Samithi, Koomankulam was received in the office of the 1 st respondent against the LPG Storage and Bottling Plant, on 12.03.2019, W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 11 and an enquiry on that complaint is being conducted by the Tahsildar, Ernad.
10. The members of Janakeeya Prathirodha Samithi, Koomankulam got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 7, by the order dated 30.07.2019 in I.A.No.5 of 2019. Along with that interlocutory application, they have produced Ext.R5(a) communication dated 01.06.2019 of the 1st respondent, forwarding a copy of the complaint made by the Janakeeya Prathirodha Samithi against the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant, to the Tahsildar, Ernad for conducting necessary enquiry and to submit a report. The document marked as Ext.R5(b) is an objection dated 12.03.2019 submitted before the 1 st respondent, by the Janakeeya Prathirodha Samithi, against the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant. In the affidavit accompanying to that interlocutory application, it is pointed out that the proposed site for LPG Storage and Bottling Plant is at a distance of only 5 to 7 meters away from the residential house of the additional respondents and that, the land in question is a rubber plantation. After cutting and removing the rubber trees standing in that property, the proposed LPG W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 12 Storage and Bottling Plant is going to be established. It is also pointed out that the proposed site is in a residential area. Within a distance of 50 metres, there are more than 15 houses. Near to the proposed site, there are temple, mosque, church, etc. A Government School, namely, GMLP School, Malangalassery is at a distance of 200 meters away from the proposed site, in which about 500 students are studying. A Health Centre, namely, NRHM Centre, is also situated nearby. A 110 KV electric line is passing about 10 meters away from the proposed site. In view of the provisions under the Explosives Act, 1884, Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 and the Electricity Rules, 2005 a factory with storage and bottling of LPG is not permissible in the area in question.
11. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.5 of 2019 denying the allegations raised by the additional respondents. Two photographs of the property in question are placed on record as Exts.P13 and P13(a). As evident from Exts.P13 and P13(a) photographs, the property in question forms part of a rubber plantation. The petitioner would also point out that the only relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the 1st respondent to issue a certificate W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 13 showing the nature of land in question. The decision making process by the statutory authorities under the relevant Acts/ Rules has to be taken independently. The land is classified under different category for the purpose of Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the rules made thereunder. The decision of the revenue authorities shall not be influenced by the objection of some people in the locality.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7.
13. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 3 to issue the certificates, as sought for in Exts.P10 and P11 applications, in respect of the property in question.
14. The title deed of the property in question is not placed on record. The petitioner has also not produced the registered lease deed executed with the land owner. If the property in question is a rubber plantation, the same would certainly be reflected in the title deed. Relying on Exts.P1 to W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 14 P6 documents, the petitioner would contend that the property in question is a dry land and in such circumstances, he has every right to establish LPG Storage and Bottling Plant in that property. Therefore, respondents 1 and 3 are bound to issue certificates, as sought for in Exts.P10 and P11 applications.
15. As per the technical parameters prescribed in Part II of Ext.P7 tender notification, the land for the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant, having an extent of at least 3.5 Acres with clear title owned by the bidder or registered lease in the name of the bidder, etc., should be industrial or commercial type and the bidder has to provide a Zone certificate issued by the competent authority in the Government. If the land offered for the proposed plant is agricultural land, the bidder is required to submit along with the tender, the acknowledgment of the application submitted to the concerned authorities for non-agricultural conversion. The documents required to be submitted online, along with the tender, are 'Zone Certificate' from Revenue Officer, Government Land extract from Revenue Department. The 'Final Land Conversion Certificate' has to be compulsorily submitted by the bidder before the issuance of work order. W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 15 Moreover, as per clause (iv) of paragraph 8 of Ext.P7 tender notification, the bidder has to declare that the site is free from any sensitive zones, schools and place of religious or historic importance which may get affected due to the construction of proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant.
16. It is specified in Ext.P7 tender notification that, in case any State or Union Territory has any specific clauses relating to 'land use conversion', land lease period, restriction on sale/lease transactions, etc. the same shall be adhered to by the Oil Marketing Companies as well as by the bidder. The bidder has to produce the necessary notification issued by the State Government or appropriate authorities regarding such restrictions. In all cases, wherever such rules exist for land purchase or long term lease, wherein there is a restriction on transfer of their rights, or mortgage or lease for any period, the subject rules shall take priority and relaxation shall be made available to the bidder as per statutes. Any responsibility on compliance of acts, rules and regulations pertaining to the land shall be the responsibility of the bidder, who shall keep Oil Marketing Company indemnified against any losses on this account. In the case of any action by W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 16 District Administrator or State Government, leading to temporary or permanent closure of facilities later at any stage, the Oil Marketing Company shall not be obliged to make any intervention. In such cases, the bidders shall not be allowed to provide offer for alternate facility utilisation and the Oil Marketing Company shall recover any losses that may accrue in view of loss of product/equipment or idling of material provided to the bidder from the available Earnest Money Deposit, Security Deposit or Outstanding payments.
17. If the land in question is part of rubber plantation, as contended by additional respondents 5 to 7, there is prohibition under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, in utilising the said land as a commercial site for setting up the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant. As held by this Court in Devassia R.V. and another v. Sub Registrar, Idukki and others [2015 (1) KLT 825], an exempted land once it is converted would be reckoned for calculating total ceiling area of the person, who held the land as on 01.01.1970. In One Earth One Life and others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KLT 985], a Division Bench of this Court, in the context of Sections 81 and W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 17 83 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, held that fragmentation of estate and transfer of it has to be treated as a case of conversion of plantation into some other category of land. Such being the scenario, fragmentation amounts to serious violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
18. Exts.P13 and P13(a) photographs produced by the petitioner, along with the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.5 of 2019, would show that the property in question forms part of a rubber plantation and the rubber trees are recently cut and removed for the purpose of setting up the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant. As per the technical parameters prescribed in Part II of Ext.P7 tender notification, the land offered by the petitioner should be industrial or commercial type. In order to substantiate the said fact, the petitioner has to provide a Zone certificate issued by the competent authority in the State Government. The averments in paragraph 4 of the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.5 of 2019 that the proposed site is a rubber plantation and that, the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant is going to be established after cutting and removing the rubber trees standing in that property, stands uncontroverted in the W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 18 counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioner.
19. As specified in Ext.P7 tender notification, the Oil Marketing Companies as well as by the bidder have to adhere to any specific clauses relating to 'land use conversion', land lease period, restriction on sale/lease transactions, etc. applicable to any State or Union Territory and the bidder shall produce the necessary notification issued by the State Government or appropriate authorities regarding such restrictions. As provided in Ext.P7 tender notification, wherever such rules exist for land purchase or long term lease, wherein there is a restriction on transfer of their rights, or mortgage or lease for any period, the subject rules shall take priority and relaxation shall be made available to the bidder as per statutes.
20. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC 449] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 19 misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.
21. In Prestige Lights' case (supra) the Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.
22. In the writ petition, the petitioner, for reasons best known to him, did not produce the title deed of the property W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 20 in question or the registered lease deed entered into with the land owner. The petitioner did not even mention the nature of the property in question, whether it is an agricultural land or non-agricultural land. As per the technical parameters prescribed in Part II of Ext.P7 tender notification, the land for the proposed LPG Storage and Bottling Plant should be industrial or commercial type and the petitioner has to obtain a Zone certificate issued by the competent authority in the State Government.
23. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145] a Three - Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.
24. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that, in order W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 21 that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.
25. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that, under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 22 force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.
26. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.
27. Officers in the Revenue Department are authorised to issue various certificates in respect of a landed property within their jurisdiction, namely, location certificate; possession certificate; possession and non-attachment certificate; etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any statutory provision, which empower the 1 st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer or the 3 rd respondent Village Officer to issue Zone certificate, land conversion certificate, etc. as per the requirements in Ext.P7 tender notification. The land conversion certificate for the conversion of an agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose is being W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 23 issued by the competent authority in States like West Bengal, Andra Pradesh, etc., under the relevant State laws. In the absence of any similar State law applicable to State of Kerala, no direction can be issued either to the 1st respondent or to the 3rd respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Exts.P10 and P11 applications. As the petitioner failed to point out any statutory duty imposed on the 1 st respondent or the 3rd respondent to issue Zone certificate, land conversion certificate, etc. as per the requirements in Ext.P7 tender notification, and the failure on their part to discharge any statutory obligation, he is not entitled for a writ of mandamus, as sought for in this writ petition.
In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching competent authority, in accordance with law, for redressal of his grievance.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 24 APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P1 B PHOTOCOPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE TRIKKALANGODE VILLAGE OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 24.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 24.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 B PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 24.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT
RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT
RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 B PHOTOCOPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT
RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE
REMITTANCE OF THE BASIC TAX DATED
19.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE
REMITTANCE OF THE BASIC TAX DATED
19.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 B PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE
REMITTANCE OF THE BASIC TAX DATED
19.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK REGISTER.
W.P.(C).No.14655 of 2019 25
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY
REPORTS SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
TENDER.
EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED
19.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
14.5.2019.
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
15.5.2019.
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF INTEND
DATED 26.06.2019 ISSUED BY BHARATH
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED.
EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE
OF THE PROPERTY POSSESSED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13(A) PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE
OF THE PROPERTY POSSESSED BY THE
PETITIONER.
4TH RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE SUB COLLECTOR,PERINTHALMANNA
TO THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD DATED 1-6-
2019.
EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 12-3-
2019.
5TH RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE SUB COLLECTOR,PERINTHALMANNA
TO THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD DATED 1-6-
2019.
EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
JANAKEEYA PRATHIRODHA SAMITHI,
KOOMAMKULAM BEFORE THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA
DATED 12-3-2019.