N.P.KUNHIKKANNAN v. STATE OF KERALA

-3-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, Kadannappilly Village in Kannur, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

(i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate necessary and effective action to measure the properties of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple mentioned in paragraph 4 of this writ petition and demarcate the survey boundary of the same;

(ii) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to keep in abeyance of all proceedings to assign the surplus land in RS.No.256/1 and 256/1B2 in Kadannappalli village till the entire landed property of the temple is measured and demarcated the boundary;

(iii) Direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate action to implement all recommendations made in Ext.P4 letter;

(iv) Direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate necessary and effective steps to evict all encroachers from the landed property of Sree

-4-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 Vellalath Siva Temple;

(v) Direct the 6^threspondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 and P8 application submitted by the temple authorities;

(iv) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to prevent all sort quarrying of stones from the temple properties;

2. The grievance of the petitioner, which is highlighted in this writ petition, is that the temple was having Jenmam right over 3,000 Acres of land spread over in two villages namely Kadannappally and Pariyaram. Since the Ooralans and the Executive Officers, who were in the management of the temple, have not taken care to protect the property of the temple, a large extent of the property is under the possession of third parties. As per the records available in the concerned village offices, the temple had 1069.35 Acres of land in Kadannappally Village and 862.64 Acres in Pariyaram Village, totalling to 1931.99 Acres. The details of the temple land furnished as in the 4^thparagraph of the writ petition read thus; Kannur Taluk Kadannappalli Amsom Desom

R.S.No Extend (Acres)

221/6 0.18

221/13 0.02

221/14 0.12

221/15 0.08

221/16 0.58

221/17 0.10

229/2 0.26

239/2 0.16

-5-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 239/3 0.66

256/1B 921.22

256/6 39.27

256/8 2.77

256/9 2.69

217/2A 3.44

217/2B 96.86

240/4 0.01

240/1 0.93

Taliparamba Taluk Pariyaram Amsom Vayad Desom 14/1A 759.34

14/1B 0.98

14/1C 0.84

16/1 9.65

16/2 91.83

Total 1931.95 Acres

3. On 01.08.2007, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 6. Notice by speed post was ordered to the 7^threspondent. The petitioner was permitted to carry out publication in Mathruboomi daily Kannur Edition. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as the non-hereditary trustee of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple. By the order dated 27.11.2007 in I.A.No.21866 of 2007, the petitioner was permitted to prosecute this writ petition in his capacity as the non-hereditary of the said temple.

4. On 14.09.2007, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

"Heard counsel on either side. Counsel appearing for the

-6-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 petitioner submitted that the property in question, covered by Rs.256/1B2 of Kadannappilly Amsom belongs to Kadannappilly Sree Vellalathu Siva Temple. The question is being examined by this Court. Counsel submitted that enquiry is going on as to whether the property is covered by the above mentioned survey number. Counsel appearing for the 7^threspondent submitted that he has got a valid 'patta' and also licence from the Geologist. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to give a direction to the District Collector to ascertain as to whether quarrying is going on in the area covered by R.S.No.256/1B2 of Kadannappilly Amsom without obtaining permission from the Geologist and other authorities. Communicate the order to the District Collector, Kannur."

5. On 22.11.2007, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, this Court passed the following order;

"We have perused Ext.P3 report dated 22.12.2005 which is self-explanatory. Enquiry was conducted and report submitted on a specific direction given by the then Honourable Devaswom Minister, on a representation submitted by the temple authorities. Complaint was that large extent of property belongs to the temple were encroached upon illegally and pattayams were obtained by some of the encroachers from the Land Tribunal fraudulently and in connivance with the officers and the temple employees. Though the report was submitted, no action was taken by the Revenue authorities till today and

-7-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 large scale quarrying operations are also going on in the properties mentioned in the report. Possibility of taking action against the encrochers in the light of the new Ordinance framed for the temples in Malabar area, has also to be examined.

Till a final decision is taken on Ext.P3 report, we are inclined to give a direction to the District Collector to see that no quarrying operations be carried out in the properties of the temple stated to have been encroached upon as mentioned in Ext.P3 report. Ordered accordingly. Communicate the order to the District Collector along with Ext.P3 report submitted by the Special Officer, for necessary action."

6. On 27.11.2007, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that licenses issued for carrying out quarrying operations in the disputed land have already been cancelled.

7. On 25.03.2008, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the 3^rdrespondent Tahsildar to identify the property referred to by the additional 8^thand 9^th respondents in their petition for modification and submit a report.

8. On 10.04.2008, when this matter came up for consideration, in I.A.No.521 of 2008, this Court granted an

-8-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 interim order directing the 2^ndrespondent District Collector to measure and earmark the property of the petitioner extending

1 Acre 20 cents comprised in R.S.No.256/1B2 (O.S.209/1B1) of Kadannappallii Village covered by Exts.R7(a) to R7(f) and to file a report this Court.

9. On 02.07.2009, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

"By an order dated 22.11.2007, an interim direction was issued by this Court directing the District Collector to see that no quarrying operation is carried on in the properties of the temple stated to have been encroached until a final decision is taken on Ext.P3 report. Subsequently, by order dated 25.3.2008, this Court gave a further direction in the case of additional 8^thand 9^threspondents that the 3^rd respondent shall identify the property referred to by those respondents in their petition for modification and submit a report. The Tahsildar has filed a report dated 29.5.2008 which is produced by the learned Government Pleader as per memo dated 10^thJune, 2008. Prima facie, it would appear from the report that the land was obtained by the Additional 8^thand 9^threspondents as per Registered deed. In the case of Additional 8^threspondent, he is stated to have obtained property in R.S.256/1B2 in Kadannappallly amsom, desom having an extent of 2.50 Acres as per Document No.2647/2005 of the Mathamangalam Sub Registry. The Additional 9^threspondent obtained 3 acres in R.S.No.256/ 1B2 in Kadanappally Amsom, desom, as per registered deed

-9-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 No.2034/2005 of the Sub Registrar Office, Mathamangalam. Both of them paid land tax till 2007-08. The land in R.S.256/1B2 is large in extent and at present no quarrying or construction activities is done in the land in the possession of 8^thand 9^threspondent.

2. Therefore, after hearing the parties we modify the interim order and vacate the stay as against quarrying operations by Additional 8^thand 9^threspondent in their respective properties as identified by the Tahsildar. We make it clear that we are only vacating the stay granted by this Court and not permission granted. Hence if the quarrying is otherwise illegal, it is a separate matter to be dealt with by the concerned authority. We however find that the interim order is passed only till a final decision is taken on Ext.P3 report and it is unfortunate that the Malabar Devaswom Board has not finalized their decision on Ext.P3 report. In the circumstances, we direct to take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months and take appropriate steps for recovery of Devaswom land either by filing civil suits or by informing the District Collector by initiating proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act."

10. The 4^threspondent Commissioner has filed a statement dated 13.08.2007. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7^threspondent, producing therewith Exts.R7(a) to R7(d) documents. The additional 8^threspondent has also filed counter affidavit, producing therewith Exts.R8(b) to R8(n). Along with a memo dated 12.02.2008 filed by the learned

-10-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 Government Pleader, a copy of Ordinance No.2 of 2008 has been placed on record. To the counter affidavit filed by respondents 7 and 8, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 25.02.2008, producing therewith Exts.P13 to 15 documents. On 04.03.2008, the 7^threspondent filed an additional affidavit producing therewith Ext.R7(e) copy of Marupat Deed No.946/43 and Ext.R7(f) copy of Assignment Deed No.1368/59. Along with a memo dated 10.06.2008, the learned Government Pleader has placed on record, the report No.K2-22368/07 dated 29.05.2008 of the 3^rdrespondent Tahsildar. The 2^ndrespondent District Collector has filed a counter affidavit dated 06.01.2010. Counter affidavit dated 13.10.2010 of the 4^threspondent Commissioner has also been filed, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(c) documents.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the party respondents.

12. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted in this matter, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article

-11-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 226 of the Constitution of India, based on the grievances highlighted by the petitioner in Ext.P6 application, which contains an allegation to the effect that certain properties of the Devaswom are being distributed as surplus land to landless farmers without the knowledge of temple authorities.

13. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. [see: Prayar Gopalakrishnan v. State Of Kerala - 2018 (1) KHC

536]

14. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such

-12-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 acts of 'fences eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

15. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan, on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy.No.1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy.No.1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy.No.1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S.No.399 of

-13-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 1998) was validly arrived at between them (the plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (the defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the proposal after taking legal advice and had duly passed a resolution to settle the suit. It was further contended that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. They relied on the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The Apex Court held that, the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered with lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the

-14-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 High Court by the order dated 09.09.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy.No.1042/2 immediately from Respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No.3 of 1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with Respondents 2 and 3, giving up the right, title and interest in Sy.No.1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. The Apex Court concluded that, viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

16. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair M.N [2013 (3) KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]

the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent

-15-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 jurisdiction and the doctrine of parents patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings.

17. In Mohanan Nair the Division Bench relied on the decision in Achuthan Pillai v. State of Kerala [1970 KLT 838], wherein a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of an order passed by the Government under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. By the said order the Government cancelled the sanction given for transfer of immovable property of a Devaswom. The initial order, i.e., Ext.P1 order was passed by the Commissioner for sanction to lease 600 acres of forest land belonging to Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom. The said order was passed in the year 1960 and the Government cancelled the same by Ext.P5 order dated 23.02.1967. The Full Bench traced the principles regarding the rights of an authority to protect the institution like Devaswom in order to prevent fraud. The Full Bench held that the power to cancel a sanction

-16-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 and thereby to make null and void an improvident transfer or alienation of immovable property of a Devaswom, though exercised under the guise of revision, is visitorial in character. It is a matter of common knowledge that even from very early times religious and charitable institutions in India came under the special protection of the ruling authority. The rulers of the country always asserted their right to visit these institutions in order to prevent fraud and redress the abuses in their management. In the celebrated Rameswar Pagoda case [(1874) 1 Ind App 209] it was pointed out by the Judicial Committee that the former rulers of this country always asserted the right to visit endowments of this kind to prevent and redress the abuses in their management. The authorities, therefore, support the conclusion that supervision and control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions is a function of government and that Government at all times asserted and exercised the power. The fact that Government did not exercise the power immediately when it became aware of the circumstances vitiating Ext.P1 order cannot prejudice the interest of the Devaswom. If the contention of the petitioner were to prevail, it would mean that because the Government

-17-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 was not very vigilant in exercising the power the interest of the Devaswom should suffer. Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides no period of limitation for a suit against a person in whom the trust property has become vested for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property. The reason behind the section is that an express trust ought not suffer by the misfeasance or non-feasance of a trustee.

18. In Mrinalini Padhi Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India (S). [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] - order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - the Apex Court noticed that the issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilisation of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all Shrines throughout the India, irrespective of religion practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a court also to issue direction for making a scheme or

-18-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout the India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or by assigning the issue/ matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction examine above aspects and if necessary send a report to the High Court. The High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as becomes necessary having regard to individual fact situation.

19. In Nandakumar v. District Collector and others [2018 (2) KHC 58] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court as to the role to be played by the High Court in exercising the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction in Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]. The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair M.N [2013

(3) KLT 132]. In the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any

-19-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 assignment/conveyance has been effected without involvement of the Devaswom, securing 'pattayam' or such other deeds, the same cannot confer any right upon the parties concerned, unless the title so derived is clear in all respects. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957.

20. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board [2018 (3) KHC 549] a Division Bench of this Court found that the task undertaken by the complainant to ensure that the property of the Devaswom is protected and preserved has ultimately brought out the plain truth that the said property was sought to be appropriated by strangers and that the property in Sy.No.1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court and also by the Apex Court [A.A. Gopalakrishnan - (2007) 7 SCC 482]. Proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy.No. 1043 as well. This is more so since in view of the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction being entrusted with the Court in this regard and there is a duty cast

-20-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 upon the Court to take every step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected.

21. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the term of the petitioner as a non-hereditary trustee of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple is already over. The learned counsel would point out that, the petitioner was prosecuting this writ petition as a devotee of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, till this Court permitted him to prosecute the writ petition in his capacity as a non- hereditary trustee of the said temple.

22. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we notice that based on Ext.P2 representation dated 24.08.2005 submitted by the Trustee Board of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, Kadannappilly, before the 1^strespondent State, a special team consisting of one retired Deputy Collector, one retired Tahsildar and one retired Deputy Tahsildar was appointed under the Special Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The special team, after verifying the available records in the temple and the respective Village offices, submitted Ext.P3 report

-21-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 22.12.2005 before the Special Officer. Ext.P3 report contains the details of the landed properties owned by the temple, as per the available records, and the list of persons who are in illegal occupation of the temple property, with patta number, survey number, etc. On receipt of Ext.P3 report, the Special Officer forwarded the same to the 1^strespondent State, along with Ext.P4 covering letter dated 17.04.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 1 to 5 are not taking any positive action in the matter and the temple properties is being encroached indiscriminately by third parties who have created false documents to assert their right over the same. Several persons who are in illegal occupation of the temple property obtained false documents influencing the revenue officials by manipulating revenue records. The 7^threspondent is one such person who is in illegal occupation of the temple property. As the encroachers are numerous the 7^threspondent is made a respondent in this writ petition, in a representative capacity, representing all the encroachers of Devaswom land. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India (S). [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] the petitioner is directed to approach the additional 10^threspondent District

-22-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 Judge, Thalassery with a petition pointing out his grievances regarding encroachment of the Devaswom land of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, Kadannappilly, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, enclosing therewith a certified copy of this judgment and supporting materials including Ext.P3 report of the special team. The additional 10^threspondent District Judge shall conduct a proper enquiry on the grievances of the petitioner regarding encroachment of the Devaswom land of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, Kadannappilly, with notice to the petitioner and the alleged encroachers, including respondents 7 to 9, and the report of the District Judge shall be forwarded to this Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that petition.

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

AV/10/2

-23-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3^RD

RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2006

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

24.08.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE TRUSTEE

BOARD CHAIRMAN TO THE HON'BLE

MINISTER

EXT.P3 COPY FO THE REPORT DATED 22.12.2005

AND THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE

SPECIAL TEAM TO THE SPECIAL OFFICER

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.04.2005

SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER TO

THE 1^ST RESPONDENT

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.12.205

ISSUED TO THE 1^ST RESPONDENT

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED

24.01.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE

PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

13.02.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND

RESPONDENT

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN

TLB.39/1973/TBA BEFORE THE 6^TH

RESPONDENT

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN

TLB.40/1973/TBA BEFORE THE 6^TH

RESPONDENT

EXT.P9 (SIC:EXT.P10) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

15.06.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE

DISTRICT OFFICER, MINING & GEOLOGY

DEPT., KANNUR

-24-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

EXT.P10 SIC:EXT.P11) COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT

PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY

DATED 8.8.2007

EXT.P11 SIC:EXT.P12) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

20.09.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,

KADANNAPPALLI-PANAPPUZHA GRAMA

PANCHAYATH

EXT.P12 SIC:EXT.P13) COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.A3(KIDS)911/2006 DATED 4.8.2007

PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

EXT.P8(a) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 23.11.2007

ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE

PETITIONER

EXT.P13(SIC:EXT.P14) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE

REGISTER OF LILST OF TEMPLES KEPT IN

THE DEPARTMENT IN 1940

EXT.P14 SIC:EXT.P15) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRP

NO.1561/90 DATED 10.12.96

EXT.P15(SIC:EXT.P16) COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE

FIT PERSON TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXT.P16(SIC:EXT.P17) TRUE COPY OF THE "ADANGAL' ISSUED BY

THE VILLAGE OFFICER KADANNAPPALLY

EXT.P17(SIC:EXT.P18) A COPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER KADANNAPPALY

EXT.P18(SIC:EXT.P19) A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED

10/5/2009 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXT.R8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS

NO.122/2005

EXT.R8(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.1105/05

-25-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

EXT.R8(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT EXT.R8(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED

BEFORE THE SUB COURT

EXT.R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE

CERTIFICATE DT.05.08.1976 ISSUED BY

LAND TRIBUNAL

EXT.R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE

CERTIFICATE DT.05.08.1976 ISSUED BY

LAND TRIBUNAL

EXT.R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DEED

EXECUTED ON 14.08.2007 BETWEEN THE

7^TH RESPONDENT AND PADINHAPRATHU

BABU

EXT.R7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT ALONG

WITH SITE PLANS

EXT.R8(b)

(SIC:R9(b))

TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENM SALE

DEED NO.693/2005 OF SRO

MATHAMANGALAM

EXT.R8(c)(SIC:R9(c)) TRUE COPY OF MARUPAT 1486/94 DATED

NIL

EXT.R8(d) (SIC:R9(d) TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.390/1955 OF SRO,

MATHAMNGALAM DATED NIL

EXT.R8(d) (SIC:R9(d) TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED WITH

SCHEDULE A DATED 5.5.1976

EXT.R8(e) (SIC:R9(e) TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED WITH

SCHEDULE A DATED 5.5.1976

EXT.R8(f) (SIC:R9(f) TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.19731/76 DATED 13.08.1976

EXT.R8(g) (SIC:R9(g) TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1949/93 OF SRO,

MATHAMANGALAM

-26-

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

EXT.R8(h) (SIC:R9(h) TRUE COPY OF JENM RIGHT FROM KANNUR

DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND TRIBUNAL AS

PER PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.339/98

DATED 20.10.98 THROUGH S.M.NO.390/93 EXT.R8(i) (SIC:R9(i) TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED

05.10.06

EXT.R8(j) (SIC:R9(j) TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE PERIOD 2007-08 DATED

23.11.2007

EXT.R8(k) (SIC:R9(k) TRUE COPY OF SKETCH DATED 14.3.2006 EXT.R8(l) (SIC:R9(l) TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE

DATED 14.03.2006 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER

EXT.R8(m) (SIC:R9(m) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED

28.2.2007

EXT.R8(n) (SIC:R9(n) TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DATED

22.08.2007

EXT.R7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE MARUPAT DEED NO.946/43

EXT.R7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1368/59

EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J4- 609/2008/MDB DATED 29.10.2008 EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (P)

SECTION NO.33482/P1/2009/REVENUE

DATED 28/7/2009

EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J-3- 6394/07/MDB DATED 31-8-09 ISSUED BY

THE 4^TH RESPONDENT