Allowed

Tulsi Developers India Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2022WP(C)/3924/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed five writ petitions challenging notices directing re-survey of properties alleged to encroach on 'Puzha Puramboke'. The Court held authorities must survey the land first before proceeding against citizens and set aside the notices, preserving liberty for future legal action if encroachment is found post-survey.

What did the court decide?

Notices directing survey of properties set aside; liberty granted to respondents to survey 'Puzha Puramboke' and initiate proceedings under Kerala Land Conservancy Act or Survey and Boundaries Act if

Tulsi Developers India Private Limited Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

TULSI DEVELOPERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VIII/522 B, MAVELIPURAM SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶8

BY ADVS. BABU KARUKAPADATH M.A.VAHEEDA BABU P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH VAISAKHI V. T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ MOHAMED HISHAM P P.LAKSHMI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001

¶11

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR OF CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD ,PIN-682 030

¶13

4 THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR (LR) PARAVUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVUR KOCHI, KERALA-683 513

¶14

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALLOOR, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,PIN-683 511

¶15

6 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 030

¶16

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶17

¶18

7 DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 030

¶19

8 TALUK SURVEYOR PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,PIN-683 513

¶20

9 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (VIGILANCE), REVENUE VIGILANCE (MIDDLE ZONE), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682 030

¶21

10 M.N.AJAYAKUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS MINI FOREST SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE MINI FOREST ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KOZHIKODE,PIN-673 020

¶22

SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SR.G.P.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).4106/2022, 4292/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶25

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶29

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶30

WP(C) NO. 4106 OF 2022

¶31

PETITIONER:

¶32

LATHA HARIKUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, WIFE OF HARIKUMAR, FORMERLY RESIDED AT D’ MARIGOLD CASTLE HOMES, VADAVATHOOR P.O, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686010 AND NOW RESIDING AT 142, BLU RAIN VILLAS, THADIKKA KADAVU, WEST VELIYATHUNADU P.O, ERNAKULAM-683511, PIN - 683511

¶33

P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ

¶34

RESPONDENTS:

¶35

1 THE THAHASILDAR, LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM 683513.

¶36

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 683511.

¶37

3 TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683513

¶38

4 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, REVENUE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

¶39

5 TULSI DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. TULASIDAS, S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, DWARAKA, MARARIKULAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688544.

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3924/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶42

¶43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶44

PRESENT

¶45

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶46

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶47

WP(C) NO. 4292 OF 2022

¶48

PETITIONER:

¶49

MIKKU ABRAHAM OOMMEN, AGED 37 YEARS SON OF OOMMEN PHILIPOSE, RESIDING AT G-13, NOEL SIGNATURE APARTMENTS, KUSUMAGIRI P.O, KAKKANAD, PIN-682030, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030

¶50

P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ

¶51

RESPONDENTS:

¶52

1 THE THAHASILDHAR LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683513.

¶53

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 683511.

¶54

3 TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683513.

¶55

4 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, REVENUE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033.

¶56

5 TULSI DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. TULASIDAS, S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, DWARAKA, MARARIKULAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688544.

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3924/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶58

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶59

¶60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶61

PRESENT

¶62

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶63

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 4380 OF 2022

¶64

PETITIONER:

¶65

SHABIR AHMED HANIF, AGED 44 YEARS SON OF P.M.M.HANIF, RESIDING AT PERUMPULLY HOUSE, KARIKKAD P.O, PERUMPILAVU VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.M. SHANAVAS, SON OF P. K. MOOSA AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SNRA 27, SNEHA NAGAR 27, HMT COLONY, THRIKKAKARA NORTH PART VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683503.

¶66

P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ

¶67

RESPONDENTS:

¶68

1 THE THAHASILDHAR LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM 683513

¶69

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 683511.

¶70

3 TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683513.

¶71

4 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, REVENUE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

¶72

5 TULSI DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. TULASIDAS, SON OF LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, DWARAKA, MARARIKULAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688544.

¶73

¶74

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶75

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3924/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶76

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶77

¶78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶79

PRESENT

¶80

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶81

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶82

WP(C) NO. 6332 OF 2022

¶83

PETITIONER:

¶84

MIRSA BABU K. A., AGED 41 YEARS SON OF ABU, KANNANCHAKKASSERIL HOUSE, NORTH PARAVOOR P.O, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513

¶85

P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ

¶86

RESPONDENTS:

¶87

1 THE THAHASILDHAR OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513

¶88

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683511

¶89

3 TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513

¶90

4 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, REVENUE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶91

5 TULSI DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. TULASIDAS, SON OF LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, DWARAKA, MARARIKULAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688544

¶92

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3924/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶93

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶94

¶95

JUDGMENT

¶96

[WP(C) Nos.3924/2022, 4106/2022, 4292/2022, 4380/2022, 6332/2022]

¶97

Among the five writ petitions I am considering together - on account of the analogous factual circumstances presented – W.P.(C) No.3924/2022 has been filed by a company by name Tulsi Developers India Private Limited (for short 'Tulsi Developers'); while the other four writ petitions have been filed by persons who have purchased properties from them and who will hereinafter be referred to as the “assignees”.

¶98

As per “Tulsi Developers”, they have developed an extent of property into a residential Villa Complex and have sold it to various persons including the “assignees”. They say that they had made the construction in strict compliance of all applicable Rules and Regulations and without encroaching into any Government Land, but that complaints appear to have been raised contrary to this. They say that this led to Ext.P9 report being settled by the District Collector, who has affirmatively found that they had not encroached into any land, including “Puzha Puramboke” as alleged. They say that, however, inspite of this, the Vigilance Department issued Ext.P12 proceedings, describing it to be a report, saying that

¶99

¶100

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶101

no cogent documents or sketches are available with respect to the “Puzha Puramboke” and therefore, requisitioning the assistance of the Survey Director for completing proceedings with respect to the same.

¶102

“Tulsi Developers” allege that the sixth respondent – Deputy Director of Survey has now issued Ext.P15 in W.P.(C) No.3924/2022 seeking that their property be surveyed based on their title documents, with an insinuating observation that they are in encroachment of the “Puzha Puramboke”. They say that Ext.P15 is wholly and egregiously improper because Ext.P9 proceedings of the District Collector has already found that they are not in such encroachment and therefore, that a further enquiry into their property, under the aegis of the Survey and Boundaries Act, is nothing but a colourable exercise of power. They thus prayed that Ext.P15 be set aside.

¶103

As far as the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.4106/2022, 4292/2022, 4380/2022 and 6332/2022 are concerned, they have also impugned similar notices issued to them for survey of their properties and they impel the same contentions as above, as made by the “Tulsi Developers”, thus seeking that the same be set aside.

¶104

I have heard Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel

¶105

¶106

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶107

appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3924/2022; Sri.Irfan Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other writ petitions and Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents in all these cases.

¶108

I notice from the files that the summons issued from this Court to some of the party respondents in these cases have not been returned. However, in view of the directions that I propose herein, I am certain that they will not put to any prejudice.

¶109

Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan - learned Special Government Pleader, answered the afore submissions of the petitioners saying that Ext.P15 in W.P.(C) No.3924/2022 is not a final report but only records certain suspicions, based on which a survey was proposed, as is evident from Exts.P17 and P18 notices therein. He submitted that there is absolutely no cause for concern for the petitioners because what has been proposed to be done is only to verify whether their constructions are in encroachment of the “Puzha Puramboke”. He, however, conceded that Ext.P9 in the said writ petition has been settled by the District Collector, but contended that this was done without reference to the sketches and documents,

¶110

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶111

¶112

which were in any case not available. He then explained that, as is limpid from Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.3924/2022, the Deputy Collector (Vigilance) has recorded this and has, therefore, requested the assistance of the Survey Director to assess the actual situation. He submitted that Ext.P15 report in the said writ petition was settled thereafter, but without any affirmative declarations of findings; and that all which is now proposed is a survey, so as to dispel every suspicion. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶113

I have evaluated the afore submissions of Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan very carefully.

¶114

As rightly stated by Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3924/2022, when a complaint was raised against her client that they have encroached into “Puzha Puramboke”, it was enquired into by the District Collector and Ext.P9 report was settled, finding without doubt that no such was found. Normally, the matter should have rested there. However, it appears that on the basis of further complaints, the Vigilance Department took up the matter again and Ext.P12 report was settled by the Deputy Collector (Vigilance), wherein, there is no finding that “Tulsi Developers” or the other petitioners have encroached into

¶115

¶116

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶117

“Puzha Puramboke”, but that the survey sketches and other documents are not available. Resultantly, a request was made for the assistance of the Survey Director, which appears to have now led to Ext.P15 report to be settled by the sixth respondent – Deputy Director of Survey.

¶118

That said, as I have already seen above, the specific submissions of Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan - learned Special Government Pleader, is that Ext.P15 does not find conclusively that any of the petitioners have encroached into “Puzha Puramboke” and that what is being attempted is only to find whether they have done so. I must say that this stand of the official respondents cannot appeal to this Court at the first instance because, if there is any suspicion that any part of the “Puzha Puramboke” has been encroached into, the proper method is to survey the said area; so that if any encroachments are found, then to notify the petitioners or such other persons appropriately, either under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act or under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act.

¶119

However, what is being now done in this case is to issue the impugned notices, based on the report of the Deputy Director, virtually rising a suspicion that the petitioners are

¶120

¶121

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶122

likely to have encroached into the “Puzha Puramboke”. When Ext.P9 and Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.3924/2022 clearly mentions that there are no documents with respect to the “Puzha Puramboke” available, I fail to understand why a fresh survey cannot be done with respect to the said properties and if anyone is found to have encroached into it, to follow it up with necessary action at that time, rather than causing a sweeping enquiry into the properties of the petitioners, as a roving investigation, but without any specific inputs.

¶123

Indubitably, therefore, what the official respondents must do is to survey the “Puzha Puramboke” first and if they are to then find that anyone, including the petitioners, have encroached into any part thereof, then to notify them appropriately, either under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act or under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and then to take necessary action against them in terms of law.

¶124

At this time, Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, learned Special Government Pleader intervened to say that, as is manifest from Ext.P16 in W.P.(C) No.3924/2022, the District Collector has already intimated the Land Revenue Commissioner that there are no documents to identify and properly measure the “Puzha Puramboke”.

¶125

¶126

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶127

Even when I hear the learned Special Government Pleader on the afore lines, it is without doubt that even if such documents are not available, it cannot lead to a roving enquiry with respect to the petitioners' properties, to prove the negative nor can they be thrust upon with any such obligation.

¶128

As I have already said above, the official respondents must certainly identify the “Puzha Puramboke” first, through cogent and reliable methods including by conducting a survey and only thereafter if encroachment is noticed, can citizens been put to detriment.

¶129

Presumably, being aware of the mind of this Court as above, Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan – learned Senior Government Pleader – submitted that a survey into the “Puzha Puramboke” will be first completed and prayed that the authorities concerned be left liberty to initiate action against the petitioners, should they be found to have encroached into it in any manner.

¶130

Resultantly, I allow these writ petitions and set aside all the notices impugned therein; however, leaving full liberty to the official respondents to conduct survey of the “Puzha Puramboke” in any manner as they may deem fit. If, after such an enquiry, any of the petitioners are found to be in

¶131

¶132

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶133

encroachment of the “Puzha Puramboke”, then they shall certainly be authorised to issue appropriate notices to them, either under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act or under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules thereunder, and initiate and complete proceedings thereon as per law; for which purpose, all contentions of the rival parties are left open.

¶134

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶135

JUDGE

¶136

stu

¶137

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶138

¶139

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3924/2022

¶140

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶141

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 01.11.2012, ACCEPTING LAND TAX FROM THE PETITIONER FOR AN EXTENT OF 1 HECTOR 90 ARES 89 SQ.METRES OF LAND SITUATED IN SURVEY NOS 431/3A65, 431/3A1,431/3A16,116/31,116/29 AND 116/28B OF KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK OF ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2012 OF THE SENOR TOWN PLANNER GRANTING APPROVAL OF LAY OUT FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 13.03.2013 ISSUED BY KARUMALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT CERTIFYING THAT THE PETITIONER IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER IN EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE ABOVE EXTENT OF PROPERTIES
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P5
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 8.12.2014 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT APPROVING AND CERTIFYING EXHIBIT P5 AND P6 SKETCH AS CORRECT

¶142

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶143

¶144

Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL TAHSAILR (LR) ERNAKULAM DATED 16.03.2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT REPORTING THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT PUZHA PURAMBOKE BY PRODUCING COPIES OF ALL THE PATTAS ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY TO ITS PREVIOUS OWNERS
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAIL REPORT DATED 29.07.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AFTER CONDUCTING HEARING AND ALSO BASED ON ALL THE REPORTS INCLUDING P4 T P8 FROM VARIOUS AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE PANCHAYATH, REPORTING THAT THERE IS NO ENCROACHMENT OF PUZHA PURAMBOKE BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.02.2019 RECEIVED FORM THE 7TH RESPONDENT DIRECTING TO APPEAR WITH DOCUMENTS ON 20.02.2019
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.04.2019 RECEIVED FROM THE 7TH RESPONDENT PROPOSING TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY ON 11.05.2019
Exhibit P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 06.04.016 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BASED ON A COMPLAINT RECEIVED IN 2013, OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT
Exhibit P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.10.2018 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSING THE 3RD RESPONDENT, INSTRUCTING TO CALL FOR REPORT FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT, OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT
Exhibit P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.10.2018 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSING THE 6TH RESPONDENT INSTRUCTING TO SUBMIT REPORT AFTER TAKING MEASUREMENTS, OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT
Exhibit P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 06.10.2020 ALONG WITH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT,

¶145

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶146

¶147

BASED ON THE INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT WITHOUT NOTICE, OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FORWARDING EXHIBIT P15 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.01.2022 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 8TH RESPONDENT, PROPOSING RE-SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.01.2022 RECEIVED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BY ONE OF THE PURCHASER OF THE VILLA FROM THE PETITIONER , PROPOSING RE-SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY

¶148

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶149

¶150

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4106/2022

¶151

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶152

Exhibit- P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 23.12.2013 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 5912/2013 OF CHENGAMANAD SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
Exhibit- P2	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY DATED 22.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit- P3	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNET PAYMENT RECEIPT OF THE BUILDING TAX IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID PROPERTY DATED 22.05.2021
Exhibit- P4	TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 27.01.2022 ISSUED BY KARUMALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Exhibit- P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE SAID ENTIRE LAND ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 04.10.2013
Exhibit- P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

¶153

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶154

¶155

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4292/2022

¶156

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶157

Exhibit- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 3446/2016 DATED 18.10.2016 OF CHENGAMANAD SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY DATED 05.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit- P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE BUILDING TAX IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID PROPERTY DATED 04.10.2019 Exhibit- P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE SAID ENTIRE LAND ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 04.10.2013 Exhibit- P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT Exhibit- P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT

¶158

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶159

¶160

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4380/2022

¶161

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶162

Exhibit- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 96/1/2020 DATED 21.12.2020 OF CHENGAMANAD SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE Exhibit- P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 04.10.2013 Exhibit- P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT Exhibit- P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT

¶163

WP(C) NO. 3924 OF 2022 & CON.CASES

¶164

¶165

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6332/2022

¶166

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶167

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 03.05.2014 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 2709/2014 OF CHENGAMANAD SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE

¶168

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY DATED 04.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE SAID ENTIRE LAND ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 04.10.2013 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 10.02.2022 IN WPC. NO.4106 OF 2022

Tulsi Developers India Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Developers India Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beena Kannath Raphy Vs Tahsildar

P.R.Danavan Vs Aniyamma Varghese.K.

T.C. Thomas, Vs the Secretary

Mohanan.S., Vs State of Kerala

Jose George Vs State of Kerala

Karikkakom Shree Chamundi Kshethram Trust, Vs Sub Collector