Kerala High Court
T.V.Krishnan vs The Village Officer on 30 July, 2025
1
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26256 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 RANGAN, AGED 70, S/O.CHATHAMOOPPAN,
VATTULAKKI OORU, MATTATHUKAD.P.O,
KOTTATHARA, AGALI, PALAKKAD.
2 KALIMOOPPAN,
AGED 69, -DO-
3 SHOURIAMOOPPAN
AGED 65, -DO-
4 NANCHAMOOPPAN,
AGED 60, -DO-
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
SMT.S.JESSIN
SRI.K.S.MIZVER
SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR
SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
TO BE REP.BY SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PALAKKAD-678581.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OTTAPALAM-678581.
2
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
4 MAYILSWAMI, AGED 54, S/O.KARUPPUSWAMI,
RESIDING AT ANAKKATTI, AGALI, PALAKKAD-678581.
5 SHANMUGHAN, AGED 51,
S/O.KARUPPUSWAMI, -DO-
6 PERUMALSWAMI, AGED 41,
S/O.KARUPPU SWAMI, -DO-
7 KRISHNAN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, -DO-
8 SAROJINI, W/O.RAMASWAMI, VATTULAKKI-OORU,
AGALI, PALAKKAD-678581.
9 MUTHULAKSHMI, W/O.RAYAPPAN,
VATTULAKKI-OORU, AGALI, PALAKKAD-678581.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.VINOD
SMT.M.S.LETHA
SRI.M.K.ROBIN RAJ, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).13488/2019, THE COURT ON 30.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13488 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
T.V.KRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VATTALAKKI,
MATTATHUKKAD P.O., AGALI, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.VINOD
SMT.M.S.LATHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOTTATHARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678581.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678582.
3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SHOLAYUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678581.
4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
AGALI, PALAKKAD-678581.
5 MURUGAN, AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O.CHORIYANIROOPAM, VATTALAKKI,
MATTATHUKKAD.P.O., AGALI, PALAKKAD-678581.
6 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679101.
4
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.K.ROBIN RAJ, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR
SRI.K.S.MIZVER
SRI.K.R.VINOD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).26256/2017, THE COURT ON 30.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
(W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017 and 13488 of 2019)
These two writ petitions are filed by the respective
petitioners seeking to challenge certain proceedings taken
under the provisions of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by
and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1999’).
2. The petitioners in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017 are
stated to be the children of one deceased Chathamooppan,
who is stated to have made an application under the
provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on the
Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act,
1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1975’), pointing
out that he had originally possessed around 12 acres of land
in Survey Nos.290 and 292 of Kottathara Village; but were
6
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
transferred to the party respondents somewhere during
1964 to 1990 under the guise of various sale deeds. The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, by Ext.P2 order
dated 28.08.1995 in TLA Case No.1340/1987, found that
the case setup by the deceased was correct and hence,
directed the party respondents in this writ petition to deliver
possession of the land to the applicant and his brother
within 30 days of service of the order, further directing the
applicant and his brother to pay compensation under
Section 11(1) of the Act, 1975. The petitioners contend that
the order at Ext.P2 has become final, since the same has
not been challenged by anyone. They point out that the
deceased and his brother were impoverished and hence
they could not pay the compensation, on account of which
they sought loans from the Government for remitting the
compensation ordered to be paid by the Revenue Divisional
Officer. They contend that they took possession of the land
7
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
and in support of the afore contention, they also seek to
rely on the photographs at Ext.P8. But, the petitioners
further contend that the 3rd respondent suo motu reviewed
the order at Ext.P2 and issued the order at Ext.P3 dated
10.12.2010 without notice to the petitioners, extending the
benefit of the proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act, 1999. The
order at Ext.P3 was challenged by the party respondents,
as evidenced by Ext.P4 appeal memorandum. The District
Collector- 2nd respondent, disposed of the appeal by Ext.P5
order, in the manner stated thereunder. It is challenging the
orders at Exts.P5 and P3 issued as above by the 2nd and 3rd
respondents, respectively, that the petitioners have filed
W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017. The petitioners have also sought
a direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from
the land covered by Ext.P2 order.
3. The 7th respondent in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017
has filed W.P(C) No.13488 of 2019, contending that he is
8
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
the absolute owner of the landed property in Survey No.
290/1 of Kottathara Village covered by Ext.P1 sale deed
No.702/1993 of SRO, Agali, executed in his favour, that tax
was also being remitted in respect of the afore property, and
that proceedings are being taken against the afore property
by respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of a complaint filed by
the 5th respondent in the writ petition, that the provisions
of the Act, 1999, would not apply to the property in
question, etc.
4. I have heard Sri K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned
counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017,
Sri.K.R.Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the party
respondents in the aforesaid writ petition and for the
petitioner in W.P(C) No.13488 of 2019, as well as
Sri.M.K.Robin Raj, the learned Special Government Pleader
(SC/ST) for the official respondents.
9
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
5. Sri. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel for the
petitioners in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017, would contend
that:
i. The proceedings under the Act, 1975, as evidenced by
Ext.P2, having become final, the 3rd respondent did not
have any jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act,
1999.
ii. The Act, 1999, did not contain any provisions for taking
suo motu steps for cancelling Ext.P2 order issued under
the Act, 1975.
iii. Ext.P3 order has been issued under the Act, 1999, without
issuing notice to the petitioners. Though the petitioners
filed an application under the Right to Information
Act,2005, seeking the details of the statement said to
have been elicited from them, as recorded in Ext.P3 order,
no reply has been received in the matter.
iv. Assuming that the provisions of the Act, 1999, would
apply, insofar as the said Act can have application only in
case of agricultural land, the impugned orders cannot be
sustained since there is no averment or finding in the
impugned orders or in the affidavits filed on behalf of the
respondents that the property in question were
agricultural land.
6. Sri.Vinod, the learned counsel for the petitioner in
10
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
W.P(C) No.13488 of 2019 and the party respondents in
W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017, would contend that:
i. The provisions of the Act, 1999, were given retrospective
operation from 24.01.1986 under Section 1(3) of the
Act,1999. When that be so, the Revenue Divisional Officer
was perfectly justified in invoking the provisions of the
Act, 1999, even on the face of the order at Ext.P2
originally issued.
ii. He referred to the provisions of Section 6, read along with
Section 5 of the Act, 1999, to contend that an order in the
nature of the one at Ext.P3 could be issued by the
Revenue Divisional Officer.
iii. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of
Kerala and Another V. Peoples Union for Civil
Liberties, Kerala State Unit and Others [(2009) 8
SCC 46], to contend that the application of the Act, 1975,
with respect to non-agricultural land was proper, even
after the enactment of the Act, 1999.
7. Sri.Robin Raj, the learned Special Government
Pleader, sought to sustain the impugned order issued by the
Revenue Divisional Officer as above. He has also produced
the entire file leading to the issuance of Exts.P2 and P3
orders.
11
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
8. After considering the rival contentions as well as
the connected records, the following issues arise for
consideration in these writ petitions:
i. To what extent the provisions of the Act, 1999,
can be applied to the facts and circumstances of
the case.
ii. Is the order issued by the Revenue Divisional
Officer at Ext.P3, in tune with the provisions of
the Act, 1999?
iii. Is the order at Ext.P3, violative of the principles
of natural justice?
9. The first issue arising for consideration is as
regards the application of the provisions of the Act, 1999,
in the case at hand. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.26256 of
2017 contends that, since Ext.P2 order issued under the
Act, 1975, has become final, there is no requirement for
invoking the provisions of the Act, 1999.
12
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895 Sri.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel, would also
contend that this is especially so since no power for review
has been conferred under the provisions of the Act,1999.
True, as contended by the learned counsel, the proceedings
under the Act, 1975, have already been finalized as
evidenced by Ext.P2. There is no provision for review of an
order issued under the Act, 1975, conferred under the Act,
1999. Reference to some of the provisions of the Act, 1999,
is required to be made for an effective evaluation of the said
contention. Provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 22 of the Act,
1999 read as under:
“Section 5. Certain transfers to be invalid. –
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in any other law for the time being in force, or in any
contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree
or order of any Court, any transfer of land possessed,
enjoyed or owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe to
a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe,
effected on or after the 1st day of January, 1960, and
before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed
13W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895to be invalid:
Provided that nothing in this section shall render invalid
any transfer of land possessed, enjoyed or owned by a
member of a Scheduled Tribe to a person other than a
member of a Scheduled Tribe effected during the
aforesaid period and the extent of which does not
exceed two hectares.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1) or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or
other authority, in cases where the land involved in
such transfer is used for agricultural purposes, the
transferee thereof shall be entitled to retain in his
possession the said land upto an extend of two hectares
which shall be demarcated by the Revenue Divisional
Officer by order and in the manner as may be
prescribed.
Section 6. Allotment of lands. –
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 5 or in
any judgment, decree or order of any Court or other
authority, a member of a Scheduled Tribe who had
effected any transfer of land, possessed, enjoyed or
owned by him, to a person other than a member of a
Scheduled Tribe, between the 1st day of January, 1960
and the 24th day of January, 1986 and where an
application for restoration of right under Section 6 of
the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction of Transfer of
14
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975
(31 of 1975) has been filed before publication of this
Act in the Gazette, but the possession or enjoyment
thereof, has not been restored to him and such transfer
has been validated by the proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 5 or the transferee thereof has been made
eligible for the retention of said land under sub-section
(2) of Section 5, shall be entitled to restoration of equal
extent of land by way of allotment from the
Government:
Provided that where the extent of the land so allotted
in respect of which there is eligibility for restoration of
rights, is less than forty ares, Government shall allot
the rest of the land required to make the total extent
equal to forty ares (One acre).
…………
Section 22. Repeal and saving. –
(1) The Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer
of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975
(31 of 1975) is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act, all
orders issued by the competent authority or the
Revenue Divisional Officer, so far as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall be
deemed to have been made under the corresponding
15W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895provisions of this Act and shall continue to be in force
accordingly unless and until superseded by anything
done or any action taken under this Act. Every
proceedings pending before a Court on a complaint
under Section 14 of the said Act shall be deemed as a
proceeding under the corresponding provisions of this
Act and shall be continued accordingly.”
Sub-section (1) to Section 5 provides that the transfer of
land possessed, enjoyed or owned by a member of the
Scheduled Tribe to a person other than a member of the
Scheduled Tribe effected on or after 01.01.1960 shall be
deemed to be invalid. The proviso thereto, however,
exempts an extent of 2 hectares from the rigor of the
statute. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 also extends the afore
benefit up to an extent of 2 hectares, in case the transfer is
of agricultural land. Provisions of Section 6 deals with a
situation where an application for restoration under the
provisions of Section 6 of Act, 1975, has been filed before
the publication of the Act, 1999, the possession or
enjoyment thereof has not been restored as prayed for by
16
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
the applicant and the transfer has been validated by the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 5 or sub-section (2) of
Section 5. The applicant, in such situations, is made eligible
for restoration of equal extent of land by the Government.
Section 22 deals with repeal and savings, and sub-section
(2) thereunder saves those orders which are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 1999.
10. Sri. Vinod seeks to rely on the judgment of this
Court in Sivarajan v. Prabhakaran [2016 (1) KLT 772],
in support of his contention that an order in the nature of
the one at Ext.P3 under the Act, 1999, can be issued. In the
afore decision, this Court considered a contention raised by
the appellant therein with reference to the provisions of
Section 5 of the Act, 1975. Considering the afore, this Court
held as under:
“7. ……..But the proviso to S.5(1) of the 1999 Act,
however, clarifies that S.5(1) shall not apply to
transfers effected in respect of properties, the extent of
17W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895which do not exceed two hectares. In other words, the
1999 Act which was deemed to be in force at the time
of execution of Ext.A1 sale deed does not invalidate the
said document as the extent of the property involved
therein is only 30 cents. Further, the 1975 Act confers
on persons who are deprived of lands the right to
approach the competent authority for restoration of the
same. The said statute also confers power on the
Government to suo moto restore lands to persons who
are deprived of the same. S.22 of the 1999 Act provides
that only orders issued by the competent authorities
under the 1975 Act, so far as they are not inconsistent
with the provisions of the 1999 Act, are saved by the
said statute. The defendants have no case that orders
have been issued in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff
under the 1975 Act for restoration of the land. As such,
even assuming that the 1975 Act was in force at the
time execution of Ext.A1 sale deed and that orders were
issued for restoration of the suit property, in so far as
the 1975 Act has been repealed and S.22 of the 1999
Act do not save orders issued by the competent
authorities under the 1975 Act which are inconsistent
with the provisions of the 1999 Act, Ext.A1 sale deed
will continue to be valid. …..”
(underlining supplied)
A reading of the afore judgment would show that it is only
18
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
when an appropriate order under the Act, 1975, was not
issued that this Court held that the provisions of the Act,
1999 would apply. As against the afore, in the case at hand,
Ext.P2 order has already been issued under the provisions
of the Act, 1975. When that be so, I am of the opinion that
the provisions of the Act, 1999, would not apply to the case
at hand. This is made clear under Section 6 of the Act,
1999, noticed earlier, wherein it has been categorically
found that it is only in a situation where an application under
the Act, 1975 has been filed, and possession or enjoyment
has not been restored, that the question of seeking
allotment of land from the Government arises. A perusal of
the provisions of the Act, 1975, shows that Section 6 thereof
provides for the issuance of an order directing the
reconveyance of the property. Therefore, restoration of the
possession of the property in question has already been
ordered by Ext.P2 order, and merely by making reference
19
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
to the provisions of Sections 5 and 22 of the Act, 1999,
Ext.P3 cannot be sustained.
11. At this juncture, the contention raised by
Sri.Vinod, that since the petitioners had not challenged
Ext.P3 order when the same was issued, they are not
entitled to maintain this writ petition, requires to be
considered. True, the petitioners have not challenged
Ext.P3 at that point of time. The petitioners contend that
they did not challenge Ext.P3 since they were not aware of
the proceedings because they were not parties before the
authority when it was issued. It is also contended that the
findings contained in the appellate order to the effect that a
statement was elicited from the petitioners herein during
the course of the proceedings under the Act, 1999, are also
not correct or legal. This Court has also perused the files
produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, which
show that there is a statement available in the file, stated
20
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
to have been elicited from the petitioners. However, even
assuming that the petitioners were heard before issuing
Ext.P3 order, I am of the opinion that since they contended
that the Authority under the Act, 1999, had no jurisdiction
to entertain the matter, the said issue can be raised at any
point of time, as held by the Apex Court in Kiran Singh
and others v. Chaman Paswan and others [AIR 1954
SC 340], wherein the Apex Court has held that it is a
fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court
without jurisdiction is a nullity and that invalidity could be
set up whenever and wherever the order is sought to be
enforced or relied upon, even if it is at the stage of
execution. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are justified
in challenging the proceedings issued under the Act, 1999,
through this writ petition. This Court also notice that if the
interpretation as extended above is not applied, position
may arise whereby already concluded proceedings under
21
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
the Act, 1975 could be reviewed or re-opened by the
statutory authorities with reference to the provisions of the
Act, 1999, to the detriment of the marginalized class of
society in whose benefit the provisions of Act, 1975, were
introduced. The intention of the Legislature was never to
disturb the concluded proceedings under the Act, 1975 by
virtue of the provisions of the Act, 1999, as noticed earlier.
This Court also notices the contention raised regarding the
compensation ordered under Ext.P2, having not been paid,
the same cannot be enforced. In my opinion, payment of
compensation is not a pre-requisite for the enforcement of
the order under the Act, 1975. The Act seeks to permit the
initiation of recovery steps for the realisation of
compensation if not paid.
12. In the light of the aforesaid finding, I hold that
Ext.P3 order issued under the Act, 1999, was without
jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid finding, the third issue
22
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
for consideration as above requires no further discussion.
In such circumstances, I allow W.P(C) No.26256 of
2017, setting aside Ext.P3 order issued by the 3rd
respondent and Ext.P5 order issued by the 2nd respondent.
13. As regards W.P(C) No.13488 of 2019, the
contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the
property which he purchased pursuant to Ext.P1 sale deed
is not to be proceeded against on the basis of the provisions
under the Act, 1999. The petitioner contends that he is
interdicted from cutting and removing the timber from the
afore property on the basis of an obstruction caused at the
instance of the 5th respondent herein. However, a writ
petition was already filed – W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017,
wherein the petitioner in this writ petition was also
impleaded, seeking to challenge the proceedings initiated
under the Act, 1999, as noticed earlier. The petitioner has
not disclosed the aforesaid writ petition when filing this writ
23
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
petition. In any view of the matter, since I have already
held that the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1999 were
without jurisdiction in view of the concluded proceedings
under the Act 1975, I am of the opinion that respondents
1 to 4 and 6 in this writ petition are only to notice and to
verify as to whether the property covered by Ext.P1 sale
deed is the very same property; which is the subject matter
of Ext.P2 in W.P(C) No.26256 of 2017 and act accordingly.
With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
24
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13488/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.702/1993 OF SRO AGALI EXECUTED
IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX PAYMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, DATED
09.04.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO.1484/1973 ISSUED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL, PUTHUR, IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDOR OF THE PETITIONER,
DATED 31.01.1973.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF 6TH RESPONDENT IN TLA CASE
NO.1340/87 DATED 28-8-95.
EXHIBIT R5(b) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS BEARING
NO.TLA 1340/87 DATED 10-12-2010.
EXHIBIT R5(c) PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF CHATHAMOOPPAN DATED
28-11-2000.
EXHIBIT R5(d) PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD IN LRG 6/2011/8006/9 DATED 6-6-17.
EXHIBIT R5(e) PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
BY SHOURIYAMOOPAN DATED 3-8-17.
EXHIBIT R5(f) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED
18-12-12.
EXHIBIT R5(g) PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTO SHOWING LAND IN POSSESSION OF 5TH
RESPONDENT AND HIS FAMILY.
EXHIBIT R5(h) PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(c) 26256/17 DATED
8-8-17 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT R5(i) PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(c) 26256/17 DATED
18-8-17 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT R5(j) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6-4-19 ISSUED BY SHOLAYUR
POLICE STATION.
25
W.P(C) Nos.26256 of 2017
and 13488 of 2019 2025:KER:55895
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26256/2017
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P-1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF CHATHAMOOPPAN DATED
28.11.2000 ISSUED BY SHOLAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM IN ORDER BEARING NO.TLA CASE
NO.1340/87, DATED 28.8.1995.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER IN TLA 1340/87 DATED
10.12.2010.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 1-2-11.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
DATED 6-6-2017.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT DATED 3-8-2017 BY 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 8.12.12.
EXHIBIT P8 TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THEIR HOUSES AND KRISHNA TEMPLE.
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2/6067/2017 DATED
24/08/2017.
ANNEXURE R3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVED COPY OF NOTICE DATED
01/12/2009.
ANNEXURE R3(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MR.CHORIYA MOOPPAN DATED
14/12/2009.