Kerala High Court
Mather Nagar Residents Association vs The District Collector on 12 February, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.33717 OF 2016(S)
PETITIONER:
MATHER NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 682
033, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENTJUNAITH NAINA, AGED
64 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMANKUNJU,PEEDIYAKKAL, MNRA-1/12,
SOUTH KALAMASSERY,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN 682 033.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.A.LOWSY
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
ERNAKULAM.
2 KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 M.C.SUNNY
NATIONAL BUILDERS, SUNNY ESTATES,GROUND FLOOR,
MAMANGALAM, COCHIN - 682025.
4 ADDL.R4 TAHSILDAR
KANAYANNUR TALUK-682018.
5 ADDL.R5 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
ERNAKULAM-682018. (ADDL.R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2016 IN IA.NO.18664/2016)
R1 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R2 BY SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER,SC KALAMASSERY MUNCIPALITY
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SR.
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 2
SRI.ANIMON A. JOHN
SRI.R.B.RAJESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28-01-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).34983/2016(S), THE COURT ON
12.2.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.34983 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
NATIONAL BUILDERS
'SUNNY ESTATE', MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM
PO,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682025,REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING PARTNER,MC. SUNNY
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
SRI.ANIMON A. JOHN
SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KALAMASSERY,KOCHI 682033
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KALAMASSERY, KOCHI 682033
3 MATHER NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
SOUTH KALAMASSERY, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO,KOCHI
682033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DR.P. RAGHAVAN
4 JUNAITH NAINA
H.NO. 152, SL3, MATHER NAGAR,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO,
KOCHI 682033
5 U.H.MOHAMMED
H.NO. 107, SOUTH AVENUE,MATHER NAGAR, CHAMPUZHA
NAGAR PO,KOCHI 682033
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 4
6 K.A.XAVIER
H.NO. 224, NR 2, MATHER NAGAR,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR
PO, KOCHI 682033
R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R3 BY ADVS. SMT.A.LOWSY
SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28-01-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).33717/2016(S), THE COURT ON
12.2.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 5
CR
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P.CHALY,J The issues in the captioned writ petitions relate to construction of a multi storied building in an extent of 39.20 Ares of property comprised in Block No.5, R.S.Nos.104/1 & 104/2, (old Sy.Nos.707/18A, 707/18A1, 707/17/2, 707/188, 702/20) of Thrikkakkara North Village. W.P.(C) No.33717/2016 is filed by Mather Nagar Residents Association, who are apparently residents of the locality, objecting to the construction proposed to be carried out by a builder viz., National Builders, who is the petitioner in the connected writ petition, seeking a mandamus directing the District Collector, Ernakulam and the Kalamassery Municipality, respondents 1 and 2, to take immediate and effective action to prohibit the 3 rd respondent from filling up 39.20 Ares of uncultivated paddy land comprised in Re-Sy Nos.104/1 and 104/2 of Thrikkakara North Village, and for a further mandamus directing the District Collector to conduct an enquiry as to how the nature of land was changed as dry land in Ext.P6 revenue record issued by the revenue authorities, which is a document similar to Ext.P13 in the connected writ petition, and to take appropriate WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 6 action against the officers, who are responsible for correcting the nature of land in the Land Register.
2. W.P.(C) No.34983/2016 is filed by the National Builders seeking mandamus to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery and Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery, respondents 1 & 2, to provide adequate and effective Police protection including protection for life to its men and workers to undertake construction works at their site situated in the survey numbers specified above, and for other consequential and related reliefs. Therefore, we heard them together and propose to pass this common judgment.
3. In fact W.P.(C) No.34983/2016 filed by the National Builders was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court as per a common judgment dated 21.12.2016 directing to provide Police protection to carry out construction activities in accordance with law, and dismissed W.P.(C) No.33717/2016 filed by the Residents Association. The matter was taken in appeal by the Mather Nagar Residents Association, before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2489-2490 of 2018 arising out of (SLP(C) Nos.3551- 3552 of 2017, Apex Court has passed an interim order on 21.11.2017 in the Special Leave Petitions specified above, directing the Revenue Secretary, Government of Kerala, to conduct an enquiry into the nature of WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 7 lands in question by deputing a suitable officer to inspect the land in question, and also to go through the revenue records, and submit a report to the Supreme Court within six weeks. On the basis of the direction issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi was authorised to visit the land and to submit a report to the Supreme Court through Advocate General. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court dated 6.1.2018. Thereafter, taking into account the rival submissions made by the parties, remanded the matter for fresh consideration with the following directions, as per an order dated 5.3.2018.:
"It is however, not clear whether permissions for construction have been granted in respect of the wet land or other lands. Rival contentions in this regard were made before us. A detailed investigation would be necessary.
Taking an over all view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to set aside the common impugned order passed by the High Court, and remand the matter for a fresh decision after taking into account the detailed report submitted by the Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam District, Kerala. If necessary, the High court is at liberty to order further report.
We order accordingly .
The High Court shall determine the entire controversy afresh in accordance with law.
The High court is further requested to dispose of these matters WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 8 at the earliest preferably not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
In the meanwhile, there shall be status quo as regards the constructions on the lands in question.
However, all submissions and contentions of both parties are left open.
The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
4. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court as per order dated 5.7.2018 in I.A.No.9891/2018 inter alia directed the 5th respondent i.e., the Principal Agricultural Officer in his capacity as Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee to obtain a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) with regard to the nature and lie of the land as on 12.8.2008. Further, it was directed that the report of the KSREC shall indicate clearly the nature of land i.e., whether paddy land, wet land or dry land as on 12.8.2008, and to report the nature and lie of the land immediately prior to and after the said date, as also the nature of the surrounding lands, before this Court to examine the legality of the construction that is proposed on the said land by the National Builders, within six weeks from the date of the order.
5. However, when the matter was posted on 19.2.2019, learned Senior Government Pleader sought further time for producing report of KSREC. However in accordance with the order dated 7.6.2019 passed in WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 9 the writ petitions, a cryptic report with indistinguishable photographs have been produced before the Court by the KSREC. Thereupon, learned State Attorney undertook to file a report before this Court with clear satellite pictures. Thereafter it is recorded in the order dated 18.9.2019 that the data analysis made by the KSREC was produced before the Court. Now we propose to dispose of the writ petitions relying upon the documents and facts available from W.P.(C) No.34983/2016, which will decide the fate of the other writ petition also.
6. Petitioner in the said writ petition is in possession of the above specified property by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.3916/2014 of the office of the Sub Registry, Edappally dated 18.9.2014. The owner of the property secured Ext.P2 building permit for construction of residential apartments, from the Kalamassery Municipality. There is no dispute with respect to other necessary licenses and permissions secured by the builder from the statutory authorities. But when the construction activities commenced, the members of the Mather Nagar Residents Association filed the connected writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No.33717/2016 raising objection, and has also submitted representations before the Municipality and the District Collector, basically contending that, the properties in question is a wetland, and that, the width of the access road is less than six meters. WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 10 However, builder/the owner of the property contends that, the property in question is only a portion of an extent of land purchased by him from the erstwhile owner of the property as per Ext.P1 sale deed and that property is a dry land described as 'purayidam' in the title deed and all the revenue records including the Basic Tax Register.
7. So much so it is contended that, the construction is carried out strictly in accordance with the permit secured and the approved plan but for reasons best known to the members of Mather Nagar Residents Association obstructions are being caused. It was thereupon that applications were filed before the Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police of the local jurisdiction to provide Police protection to carry on with the construction. In W.P.(C) No.33717/2016, the main objection raised by the Residents Association is that, the width of the way leading to the property in question is less than 6 meters prohibiting the builder from carrying out the construction in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, and that the property in question is a wetland, and therefore, prohibited from filling it up as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called, 'Act 2008').
8. So far as the issue raised with respect to the width of the access WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 11 road on the basis of the complaint submitted by the Residents association, Kalamassery Municipality has issued a notice dated 3.10.2016 apparently as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules directing the builder to stop the construction activities. Against the said order of the Municipality, the builder has approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram and the Tribunal has passed an order of stay dated 18.10.2016. Therefore, the said issue is at large before the Tribunal and we are informed that the subject matter is pending consideration before the Tribunal. Therefore, the sole question that comes up before us for consideration is, whether the property in question is a paddy land as claimed by the Residents Association or a dry land as claimed by the land owner ?
9. The photographs produced by the Residents Association along with the writ petition would show that the property is a water logged area and it is contended that, it is on the said property that construction is proposed to be carried out by the builder. The said photographs are dated 19.10.2016. It is also contended by the Residents Association that, going by Ext.P6 revenue document, the property in question situated in Sy.Nos.104/1 and 104/2 were originally shown as 'nilam' (paddy field), which was later shown as 'purayidam', evident from Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 12 No.33717/2016, similar to Ext.P13 in the connected writ petition. It is also evident from the said document that the classification of the property is additionally entered as 'purayidam' against the original entries of 'nilam' (paddy field) on 31.12.1993 and 1986, on the basis of several title deeds and a partition deed bearing No.2320/86 respectively. Therefore, it is contended by the Residents Associationthat the classification was re-done in the revenue records without conducting due enquiry and therefore, it cannot be sustained under law.
10. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.V.V.Ashokan for the petitioner in WP.(C) No.34983/2016 assisted by Adv.Animon A. John, Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar for the Residents Association assisted by Adv.K.Shibli Naha and learned State Attorney Sri.K.V.Sohan and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
11. So far as the builder is concerned, it is having sufficient documents with it in respect of the building permit secured for carrying out the constructions in the property. But fact remains the validity of the building permit issued by the Municipality is now pending before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions consequent to stop memo issued by the Secretary of the Kalamassery Municipality and the Tribunal has stayed the stop memo. Therefore, according to the builder, by virtue of WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 13 the stay granted by the Tribunal, they are entitled to proceed with the construction activities in accordance with the permit and the approved plan sanctioned by the Kalamassery Municipality. The said aspect is not under dispute before us. Therefore, normally and ordinarily when stay was granted by the Tribunal against the action of the Municipality stopping the constructions, the builder was entitled to carry on with the construction. However, when the matter was remanded for fresh consideration to this court by the Apex Court, parties were directed to maintain status quo and accordingly, no construction was carried on.
12. The paramount contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing for Residents Association is that, the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court produced as Ext.P14 in W.P.(C) No.34983/2016 shows that, two extents of property shown thereunder i.e., 'A' plot and 'D' plot in Sy.Nos.104/1 and 104/2 having an extent of 10 Ares and 00.24 Ares are wet lands and the properties admeasuring 19.86 Ares and 09.10 Ares situated in Sy.No.104/1 as 'B' plot and Sy.No.104/2 as 'C' plot are reclaimed lands, which cannot be utilised for the purpose of carrying out construction without securing orders from the appropriate statutory authorities as per the provisions of the Act, 2008. The Sub Collector has also reported that, the aforesaid properties situated in WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 14 Sy.Nos.104/1 and 104/2 are shown as 'purayidam' (dry land or garden land) as per the land tax receipt (Book No.61899 and L No.6189823, Thandaper Register (No.32810).
13. Apparently from Ext.P6 and Ext.P13 produced in the respective writ petitions, it is evident that, the said finding of the Sub Collector tallies with the revenue records. That apart in the report, the description of the property is shown as nearby the Ernakulam - Shornur Railway line. The western boundary of the property is railway line and vacant land, and Municipal road on the northern and eastern side and wetland on the southern side. It is further reported that, a coconut tree is seen standing in the wetland i.e., plot 'A'. A terraced building bearing No.3/408A/94 in the reclaimed land (plot B). It is also pointed out that, yet another coconut tree, one Anjaly tree and other trees were standing in the said property.
14. On the basis of the soil sampling analysis, it is reported that, the soil samples were taken from the reclaimed land i.e., plots B and C and that soil texture became sandy clay and black in colour and thereafter the analysis indicates that, the land in question was originally wetland and later on reclaimed. However, the matter was remanded by the Apex Court having found that, it was not clear whether the permissions for WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 15 construction have been granted in respect of the wetlands or other lands, also leaving open the liberty of this Court to secure further reports and the parties to raise their contentions before this Court.
15. The report consequently secured by this court through KSREC, a nodal agency functioning of the Government of Kerala, Planning and Economic Affairs Department, providing necessary assistance to various authorities including authorities under Act, 2008, dated 11.8.2018 is produced by the State Attorney before this court as per a memo dated 7.6.2019. Report on land use change thereunder shows that, the said agency had examined the survey plot in question with all available Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS) data in the Centre as well as online open source data available in public domain and it was accordingly that final conclusions were arrived at.
16. The survey numbers in question i.e., 104/1 and 104/2 of the Thrikkakara North Village is mentioned in the said report, and the lie and nature of the survey plots are also described thereunder with precision and clarity. It is also reported that location of the survey plot maps provided, identified in all available data sets using Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographical Information System (GIS). The survey plot mentioned in WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 16 the request were drawn from the cadastral sheets pertaining to the area and various data sets were used for the analysis identifying the month and year on the satellite data, which are as follows:
1) Topo map - Year 1967 (58B/08 Survey of India)
2) Cadastral Map - Year 1940 (Survey and land records)
3) FMB - Survey & Land Records
4) Satellite data - Year 2008 (Google Earth)
5) Satellite data - Year 2009 (Google Earth)
6) Satellite data - Year 2015 (Google Earth)
7)Satellite data - Year 2018 (Google Earth)
17. Analysis was done by the said agency using high resolution ortho-rectified Indian Remote sensing satellite products used for the cadastral maps pertaining to the survey plot and change detection in land use and land cover of the site. The figures secured in the process are also produced along with the report. The figure shows cadastral maps of the plot super imposed over Indian Remote Sensing satellite data - Cartosat - 1. The said figures, 2 to 6 also shows the exact location of the property owned by the builder, the nature and lie of the nearby areas, the railway track passing in between the property in question and the property lying on the other side of the railway track.
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 17
18. It is also quite clear and evident from the figures made available that there is no aquatic system available anywhere near the properties in question and basically the properties on either side of the railway track are seen constructed with buildings except the disputed property in question, which is specifically marked in the figures. It is also reported that the toposheet of 1967 regarding plot No.104/1 was observed as paddy, and the plot was observed under fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation in southern side on 24.1.2008 (figure 3). The same trend in land use practices were observed to be continued in the data of 21.12.2009 (figure
4), 6.1.2015 (figure 5) and 11.1.2018 (figure 6). As per the toposheet of 1967, the plot 104/2 was observed under paddy. The plot was observed under mixed vegetation/plantation with building/structures towards the eastern side, while the western part of the plot was under fallow in the data of 24.1.2008 (figure 3). The same trend in land use practices were observed to be continued in the data of subsequent years as in 21.12.2009 (figure 4), 6.1.2015 (figure 5) and 11.1.2018 (figure 6). It is also pointed out that the report is prepared based on the observations from the available satellite data of different years without physical verification. After taking into account all the above, the analysis, observations and conclusions are provided as follows: WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 18
" the analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2008, 2009, 2015 and 2018 for the survey plot. As per the toposheet of 1967, the plot 104/1 was observed under paddy. The plot was observed under fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation in southern side in the data of year 2008. The same trend in landuse practices were observed to be continued in the data of subsequent years as in 2009, 2015 and 2018. As per the toposheet of 1967, the plot 104/2 was observed under paddy. The plot was observed under mixed vegetation/plantation with building/structures towards the eastern part, while the western part of the plot was under fallow in the data of year 2008. The same trend in landuse practices were observed to be continued in the data of subsequent years as in 2009, 2015 and 2018."
19. Therefore, on a deeper consideration of the report submitted by the said agency, it is categoric and clear that, there is no wetland at all during the period in question. The property during the year 1967 was paddy field and the toposheet as well as the analysis show that during the year 2008, the property in Survey No.104/1 is lying fallow with mixed vegetation/plantation, as is evident from the figures specifically mentioned above. So much so the properties situated in survey No.104/2 is concerned, same was also under paddy cultivation and the plot is seen fallow with mixed vegetation with buildings/structures towards the eastern side as on 24.1.2008.
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 19
20. Now the prime contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Residents Association is that going by the report of the Sub Collector submitted before the Apex Court, the property is wetland and therefore, there is a clear prohibition contained under the Act, 2008 and invited our attention to section 11 of Act, 2008 dealing with prohibition on reclamation of land which read thus:
"On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the wetlands of the State shall be maintained as such and there shall be a total prohibition on reclamation of such wetland and removal of sand therefrom:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the removal of slurry and mud to maintain the ecological condition of such wetland."
21. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, on and from the date of introduction of Act, 2008 i.e., 12.8.2008, no reclamation of wetland is possible. In order to understand the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, the definition of wetland provided under Act, 2008 is relevant:
"Section 2(xviii): "wetland means land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterized by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 20 marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers."
22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side submitted that, the properties in question have access from the National Highway from Kochi to Coimbatore and by the side of Kochi Metro line, which are also admittedly developed areas with large number of residential, commercial and multi utility buildings apart from various educational and religious institutions, thus having no scope for any paddy cultivation.
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 21
23. However, the alternative argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Residents Association is relying upon Ext.P6 and Ext.P13 revenue record filed in the respective writ petitions that the property was recorded as paddy field. Therefore, the petitioner Residents Association is not entitled to blow hot and cold at the same time contending that the land is wetland in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 2008. The said aspect is also clear from the report of the KSREC. In that view of the matter, the contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Residents Association that the property in accordance with the report of Sub Collector is wetland, cannot be sustained under law. Mere low lying or a fallow land can never be considered and treated as wetland as per Act, 2008, unless as said earlier, it is having the characteristic features as defined under the Act. That being the factual and legal situation, the contention that the properties in question are wetlands as per Act, 2008 has no foundation or basis. It is also explicit from the satellite pictures produced along with the report of KSREC that, in between the properties constructed with buildings is Kochi to Shornur railway line. Therefore, it is also evident that, there is no existing aquatic systems in order to treat the same as wetland as per the provisions of Act, 2008.
24. It is also relevant to note that, prior to the introduction of Act, WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 22 2008, there was no prohibition from reclaiming a wetland. True, prior to the introduction of Act, 2008, there was a prohibition contained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 from utilising a paddy field for other purposes other than paddy cultivation. It is an admitted fact that, the properties in question are not included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of Act, 2008. Section 3 of Act, 2008 deals with prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land. Sub-section (1) thereunder read thus; "On and from the commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
25. Therefore, it is explicit and clear that from the date of introduction of Act, 2008 i.e., 12.8.2008 onwards, a paddy field cannot be converted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. Which thus also means, Act, 2008 prohibits conversion of paddy land, only if the property in question was included in the data bank constituted for the purpose under the Act. Admittedly the properties in question are not included in the data bank constituted under Act, 2008. It is also clear from the report of the KSREC that, though the properties in question were paddy field in the toposheet of 1967, in the toposheet of 2008 onwards WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 23 the properties in Sy.No.104/1 is shown as lying fallow with mixed vegetation etc. etc. and the properties situated in Sy.No.104/2 is shown as lying fallow with mixed vegetation/plantations and buildings/structures towards the eastern side. Accordingly, it is clear that the filling up of the property was done prior to the introduction of Act, 2008.
26. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the builder has invited our attention to various judgments rendered by this Court as well as Apex Court to canvass the proposition that the builder is not liable to secure any permission under the provisions of Act, 2008. In Jafarkhan v. K.A.Kochumakkar and Others [2012(1)KHC 523:2012(1)KLT 491:ILR 2012(1) KER 535] rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, the question arose for consideration was, whether the provisions of the Act, 2008 are attracted to a paddy land that was converted prior to the commencement of provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Taking into account the various aspects of the Act and fact remaining in the said appeal, it was held that, if the land was converted prior to the commencement of Act, 2008, a party cannot be called upon to restore such land to paddy land under the Act. Paragraphs 4 & 5 are relevant to the context, which read thus:
"4. While counsel for the appellant supports findings of the WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 24 Collector on the facts pertaining to the nature and identity of the land, Senior counsel for the first respondent contended that the findings of the Collector are incorrect and in this regard he has referred to the report of the Agriculture Officer referred to in the Collector's report. On going through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, we notice that the Single Judge has not bothered to find out the true nature and character of the land in respect of which Collector passed the order, even though appellant has produced even the photographs which prove that the land has got buildings in it besides rubber and arecanut trees appearing to be planted at least 10 years back. S.3(1) of the Act is as follows:
"S.3. Prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land :- (1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
What is clear from the above is that prohibition is only in respect of conversion or reclamation of paddy land after the commencement of the operation of the Act. The Act admittedly came into force only with effect from 12.8.2008 and so much so, whatever be the conversions of paddy land or wet land made prior to the coming into force of this Act, cannot be said to be a violation of the Act. S.13 of the Act authorises the District Collector to order reconversion of paddy land and wet land which is converted in violation of the provisions of the Act. S.13 is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
"13. Power of the District Collector.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Collector may take such action, as he deems fit, without prejudice to the prosecution proceedings taken under the Act, to restore the original position of any paddy land reclaimed violating the WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 25 provisions of this act, and realize the cost incurred in this regard from the holder or occupier of the said paddy land, as the case may be, so reclaimed after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
When read with S.3 of the Act, what is clear from S.13 is District Collector is empowered to order reconversion of the land only if reclamation or conversion was made after the commencement of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the question left to be decided is assuming the appellant's adjoining land which is 12.7 ares was originally paddy land, whether reclamation and conversion was made after the commencement of provisions of the Act i.e., 12.8.2008. In this regard we are constrained to observe that if the photographs produced by the appellant which is of the land adjoining one side of the appellant's factory building is the land covered by the Collector's order, then it has to be necessarily held that the land is converted and planted with rubber and arecanut atleast 10 years back. This is because we notice from the photographs that the rubber trees standing in the said land is attached with plastic shades for facilitating tapping during monsoon. Rubber trees have a maturity period of 7 years and so much so, planting would have been done not less than 7 years back. It is not clear from the photographs as to when the tapping started. Further, it is seen that there is mixed crop cultivation in the land with large number of arecanut trees which appear to be not less than 10 years old. Apart from all these, the land has got atleast two buildings as is revealed from the photograph, which also do not appear to be new. In Ext.P16 produced in W.P.(C) No.27855/2011 which is the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, it is stated that they have noticed that the land was planted with arecanut trees and appellant was cultivating pineapple also therein. Going by these findings in Ext.P16 report, we feel the WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 26 photographs produced by the appellant will be of the same land. Even though photographs intrinsically support the case of the appellant that land development, cultivation and building construction were done years back i.e., much before commencement of provisions of the Act and if so, the Collector's order does not warrant any interference, we still feel since the first respondent has contested the identity of the land and since all four sides of the particular factory are not seen in the photograph, we leave it to the Collector to identify the land involved i.e., 22.70 ares in the two survey numbers stated above and if it is the land with the buildings and the arecanut plantation and rubber plantation, then he will pass orders confirming the identity which will supplement Ext.P12 order. The Collector is directed to get the identity of the land verified with survey numbers through the Village Officer and if the Village Officer reports that the land has buildings with tapping rubber plantation with yielding arecanut trees as found in the photographs, the Collector will pass orders reconfirming Ext.P12 with specific identity of the land. If the Collector passes fresh orders identifying the land with the description claimed by the appellant and stated above, then all consequences will follow entitling the appellant to utilise the land for his factory purpose and the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions will stand confirmed. However, if by any chance the land is not the one as identified by the appellant with the photographs and as described by us above, then the Collector will examine whether any conversion or filling is done after the commencement of the provisions of the Act and if so, he will comply with the judgment of the learned Single Judge for restoration of the land. Writ Appeals are allowed vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and with directions as stated above.
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 27
5. Before parting with the matter, what we notice is that there is no provision in the Act to help owners of paddy land and wet land which have been rendered unfit for cultivation on account of conversion of adjoining paddy land by it's owners before commencement of the Act. In other words, those who have converted paddy land prior to the commencement of the Act cannot be called upon to restore such land to paddy land under this Act. However, as a consequence of such conversions, paddy land of many other adjoining owners have been rendered unfit for cultivation and by virtue of the provisions of the Act, they are not able to convert and utilise their land for any other purpose. This is certainly injustice to such helpless paddy land owners who are now glorified owners of paddy land or wet land without any returns therefrom. People with muscle and money power and political or official patronage have been converting paddy land in violation of the Land Utilisation Order and while such conversions got regularised, the less influential nearby owners are helpless owners unable to utilise their paddy and wet lands rendered unfit for any use. In our view, wherever paddy or wet land has become unfit for cultivation viably, such land should be permitted to be converted for suitable use instead of allowing it to be retained as waste land. Government Pleader will forward copy of this judgment to the Government for their consideration."
27. In the judgment in Aishabeevi and Another vs. Superintendant of Police, Ernakulam and others [2014(3)KHC 678:2014(3)KLT 1078], this Court considered a similar question, wherein it was held that, since the land in question was converted prior to the commencement of Act, petitioners therein have right to construct building, WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 28 and further that, there was no bar to grant building permit in respect of any construction in a land converted prior to the commencement of Act, 2008, even if such conversion was made in violation of Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Accordingly, Police protection was granted for the construction of the building. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are relevant to the context, which read thus:
11. The main thrust of the 4th respondent's argument is that no competent authority has passed any order so far to convert the above said paddy land to garden land or to reclassify the land. Thus, the property continues to remain in the same classification as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and title deed. Therefore, the land in question is an illegally converted land and it cannot be used for any purpose other than agricultural purpose in the absence of an order under Land Utilisation Order, 1967 explicitly permitting conversion or reclamation.
The points to be noted from the said contention is that the 4th respondent has no case that on factual verification the property in question is still lying as paddy land suitable for paddy cultivation as defined in the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 or the property in question was converted to garden land after the commencement of Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Obviously, it is discernible from the pleadings that 4th respondent is relying on the entries in the revenue records as 'Nilam' and not on the fact as the land exists on ground. It became more clear when the learned counsel advanced an argument, which could not find a place in the pleadings, that the paddy land was converted to garden land in violation of S.6 of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967. WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 29 Needless to say, it amounts to an implied admission that there is no conversion after the commencement of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and the property was converted to garden land before the commencement of Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is to be borne in mind that the land in question is one for which Ext.P4 permit is granted by the Panchayath for construction of a building and no police protection is sought for conversion. To common knowledge, no building can be constructed in a paddy land without conversion. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that not only at present but also at the time of the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the property in question was not lying as paddy land.
12. Whether Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 has retrospective operation? This question was settled by another Division Bench of this Court in Jafarkhan v. K.A.Kochumakkar & Others, 2012(1)KHC 523: 2012(1)KLT 491:2012(1)KLJ 607:ILR 2012(1)Ker.
535.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
What is clear from the above is that prohibition is only in respect of conversion or reclamation of paddy land after the commencement of the operation of the Act. The Act admittedly came into force only with effect from 12.08.2008 and so much so, whatever be the conversions of paddy land or wet land made prior to the coming into force of thi s Act, cannot be said to be a violation of the Act. S.13 of the Act authorises the District Collector to order reconversion of paddy land and wet land which is converted in violation of the provisions of the WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 30 Act.
28. After analysing the entire pros and cons, it was held in Aishabeevi (supra) that, in view of the legal proposition and survey made in the Land Utilisation Order,1967 and Act, 2008, there is no provision either in the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 or Act, 2008 prescribing a legal presumption that, in the absence of an order granting conservation of paddy land under Kerala Land Utilisation Order,1967, the paddy land, which stood converted after the commencement of Land Utilisation Order,1967, without specific order permitting conversion, shall be presumed to be an illegally converted land, for which no permit for construction of a building can be granted and such land cannot be used for any purpose other than agricultural operations.
29. It was also held that, the Act, 2008 does not say anything about the legal status of the paddy field which stood converted to garden land before the commencement of the above Act without permission under Land Utilisation Order. On the other hand, section 14 of the Act, 2008 imposes a clear bar against the granting of license or permit to carry out any activity or construction in paddy land converted after commencement of Act, 2008, of which it can be legally presumed that, such a bar is not made applicable to the paddy land, which converted before the WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 31 commencement of Act, 2008.
30. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, learned Senior Counsel for the builder submitted that the properties in question situated in a fully developed area and which is not a wetland and paddy land not included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of Act, 2008 is entitled to be used by the builder in accordance with law without any inhibitions and prohibitions contained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,1967 and Act, 2008.
31. We are conscious of the fact that, as per Exts.P6 and P13 revenue records produced in the writ petitions, the properties were originally paddy fields, however, which was later seen classified as 'purayidam' without defacing the original entry in the revenue records. It is an admitted fact that the builder has purchased the property only on 18.9.2014 and the additional entries in the revenue record as dry land was made during the year 1993 and 1986 respectively. Therefore, the builder is not liable or permitted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 to seek conversion for the utilisation of the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation. In this context, the judgment of the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and Another [2015(2)KHC 109:2015(1)KLT WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 32 984:ILR 2015(1) Ker.851] is relevant. The Apex Court had in unequivocal and categorical terms has laid down the law that, the original entry in the BTR cannot be removed. However, held that, if the property is not included in the data bank constituted as per Act, 2008, one is entitled to seek utilisation of the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation as per the provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. Paragraphs 18 to 21 are relevant to the context, which read thus:
"18. If a property is included in the Data Bank or the Draft Data Bank prepared under the Wet Land Act 2008 as a "Paddy Land" or "Wetland" and the classification of land is noted as "Nilam" in revenue records, the provisions of the Act 28/2008 would apply. As noticed earlier, there is ample provision within the Act to grant permission for such land for residential purpose or public purpose as defined in the Act. And as elaborated earlier, if the property is not included in the Data Bank as "Paddy Land" or "Wetland" as defined under Act 28/2008, it is still governed by the provisions of KLU Order 1967. Thus, State of Kerala has two statutes -KLU Order 1967 and Kerala Cultivation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 each dealing with delineated areas with respect to preservation, management and process of reclamation of agricultural and paddy land for any other legitimate use.
19. Kerala Land Tax Act 1961 is an Act to provide for levy of basic tax of land in the State of Kerala. High Court directed correction of Basic Tax Register (BTR) under Section 18 of Kerala Land Tax Act to order change of nature of land. The change of nature of the land with the passage of time cannot be regarded as a conversion which can be rectified under Section 18 of the KLT Act. Section 18 of KLT Act provides for rectification of mistakes. Section 18 reads as follows:-
"18. Rectification of mistakes.-At any time within four years from the WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 33 date of any order passed by it the prescribed authority or the appellate authority or the revisional authority may, on its own motion, rectify any mistake apparent from the record and shall, within a like period, rectify any such mistake which has not been brought to the notice of the prescribed authority or the appellate authority or the revisional authority, as the case may be, by a land-holder or other person liable to pay tax:
Provided that no such rectification shall be made which has the effect of enhancing the tax payable unless the landholder and any other person liable to pay tax have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter."
20. By the perusal of the above provision, it is evident that the rectification of mistake narrated in S.18 relates to the apparent mistake on the face of the record in relation to any order passed by the prescribed authority, Appellate authority or the revisional authority under the Act. Therefore, the rectification of mistake can only be in respect of proceedings or orders passed by the original authority, Appellate authority or the revisional authority.
21. Statutory enquiry to ascertain whether the land is a "Paddy Land" or "Wetland" and conversion of the land for residential purpose or for any public purpose is governed by KLU Order or the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 for conversion of the land from "Nilam" (Wetland) to 'Purayidam' (Dry Land). The concerned authorities constituted under KLU Order or Kerala Wetland Act 2008 are the competent authority. Nature of the land cannot be changed or converted by directing changes in the Basic Tax Register which is maintained only for the purpose of land tax. The rectification envisaged by Section 18 of Kerala Land Tax Act can only be in respect of arithmetical or clerical error, that too in the order of determining the tax due. S.18 cannot be made use or the same cannot be taken as a means to effect conversion of the nature of the land bye- passing the competent authority and the procedure stipulated under the KLU Order, 1967 and the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 and the impugned WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 34 judgment is liable to be set aside."
32.Anyhow, thereafter a Division Bench of this Court in Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kizhakkambalam v. Mariumma [2015(3)KHC 19(DB)] has held that, there is no prohibition for making any additional entries in the revenue records without defacing the original entry. Paragraph 9 is relevant to the context, which read thus:
"9. The further issue raised before us by the learned Government Pleader was that in view of the directions of the Apex Court as contained in paragraph 21 extracted above, even if the authorities under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 pass an order in favour of the respondents, there cannot be any correction of entries in the Basic Tax Register maintained under the Kerala Land Tax Act. This contention was raised in the context of the principles laid down in the judgment that rectification as envisaged by Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act can only be in respect of arithmetical or clerical error, that too in the order of determining the tax due. Though it is true that in the judgment of the Apex Court, it has been held as above, that principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the background of Section 18 providing for rectification of mistakes. In our view, if an order is passed by the authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order or Act 28 of 2008 changing the description of the land, that cannot lead to a situation where Section 18 is attracted. On the other hand, such change of the description of the land would render the assessments already made under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 redundant and instead what is called for is a fresh assessment in accordance with the said Act. Necessarily, as a consequence of such WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 35 assessment, it would be open to the authorities also to make appropriate additions to the Basic Tax Register. Such a course, in our view, is not forbidden by any of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, particularly those contained in paragraph 21 of the judgment mentioned above."
33. Having appreciated the rival submissions, the pleadings and the documents on record, we are of the considered opinion that, the properties in question were converted prior to the introduction of Act, 2008 and additions are made in the revenue records classifying the land as 'purayidam' much prior to the property was purchased by the builder, evident from Ext.P1 document dated 18.9.2014. Bearing in mind the provisions of law discussed above, the requirements under law, the proposition of law laid down in the aforequoted judgments, and that the area in question is built up with several buildings and structures, we are of the considered opinion and view that, there is no legal basis enabling the Residents Association to secure any reliefs as is sought for in W.P.(C) No.33717/2016. Therefore, they have no right, legally and morally to obstruct the constructions carried out by the builder in accordance with law and in terms of the building permit and the approved plan secured by the builder.
34. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that, the builder is entitled to get Police protection, if any obstructions are WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 36 created by the Residents Association, and if the construction is carried out by the builder in accordance with law. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Kalamassery to provide adequate protection to the National Builders, if any obstruction is created by the members of the Mather Nagar Residents Association, or at their behest, to carry out the construction in accordance with the plan and permit issued by the Kalamassery Municipality and in accordance with law.
Resultantly, W.P.(C) No.34983/2016 is allowed and W.P.(C) No.33717/2016 is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
Smv JUDGE
3.2.2020
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 37
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33717/2016
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
28/9/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/9/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/10/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY.
EXHIBIT-P5: A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE NATURE OF LAND COMPRISED IN RE.SY.NO.104/1AND 104/2 OF THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT-P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LAND REGISTER IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.104/1 AND 104/2, OF THRIKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT-P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LAND REGISTER IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.104/1 AND 104/2, OF THRIKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.10.2016, SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.10.2016, SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 16.11.2016, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT MR. KRISHNAKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.9253 OF 2016 IN O.S. NO.1546 OF 2016 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION SCHEDULE IN I.A.NO.9253 OF 2016 IN O.S.NO.1546 OF 2016 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 38EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.9253 OF 2016 IN O.S.NO.1546 OF 2016 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1 NIL. EXHIBIT R2 NIL. EXHIBIT R3 NIL. EXHIBIT R3 (A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.10.2016
SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R3 (B) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR.
EXHIBIT R3 (C) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 39APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34983/2016 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3916/2014 OF EDAPPALLY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE DATED 18.09.2014 EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATED 19.09.2016 EXHIBIT P1 B TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE DATED 16.03.2015 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT (BA 142/2015) ISSUED BY KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY DATED 17.08.2016 EXHIBIT P3 AN EYE SKETCH (PRINTOUT FROM GOOGLE MAP) SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING HOUSES DATED NIL EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY DATED 07.06.1997 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND OTHERS TO THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY DATED 28.09.2016 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND OTHERS TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 30.09.2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER PERTAINING TO RE SY.NO. 104/1 DATED NIL EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.2016 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.2016 EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOGRAPHS DISCLOSING THE PROTRUSION OF THE COMPOUND WALL ABUTTING THE ACCESS ROAD DATED NIL EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 40 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN IA.NO. 1691/2016 IN APPEAL NO. 966/2016 DATED 18.10.2016 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FAIR VALUE REGISTER TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AND RELEVANT DRAWING OF THE ZONAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY.NO.707(RE.SY.NO.104/1, 2) ETC. OF THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE TAX REGISTER. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, FORTKOCHI.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SLP 3551 AND 3552 OF 2018.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3916/2014 OF EDAPPALLY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXHIBIT R3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER COMPRISED IN RE SURVEY NO.104/1 AND 104/2.
EXHIBIT R3(C) A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 4.10.2016 ISSUED FROM GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT R3(D) A TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE REGISTER PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OR REGISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBITR3(E) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FILED MAP ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH DATED 7.10.2016.
EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 18.10.2016 IN I.A.NO.1691/2016 IN APPEAL NO.966/2016 IN THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.BA-
142/2015 ISSUED BY THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY DATED 17.8.2016.
WP(C).Nos.33717 & 34983 OF 2016 41
EXHIBIT R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN.