Dismissed

Muhammed Basheer a. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2022WP(C)/5889/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed four connected writ petitions challenging the decision to construct a judicial complex in land offered by the Karunagappally Municipality instead of land surrendered by the Thazhava Grama Panchayat. The court held the decision was not arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed, leaving it open for stakeholders to hasten the process of land transfer and construction.

Muhammed Basheer a. 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 V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 /4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14395 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.A.AZAD,AGED 70 YEARS,ADVOCATE,IQUBAL MANZIL,
KADATHORE MURI, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
K.SUDHINKUMAR
S.K.ADHITHYAN
SABU PULLAN
GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 013

¶13

4 THE SECRETARY, THAZHAVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, S.R.P.M.P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 523

¶14

5 HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (DISTRICT JUDICIARY), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031

¶15

6 ADDL.R6.SOORAJ KUMAR.T.S AGED 40, S/O.T.K.SASIDHARAN, THAYYIL, S.V.MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 573.

¶16

7 ADDL.R7.B.BINU AGED 43, S/O.G.B.PILLAI,MANDANATH, EDAKULANGARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 523. [ADDL.R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.02.2022 IN I.A.1/2022 IN WP(C)14395/2021]

¶17

8 ADDL.R8. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. [ADDL.R8 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.02.2022 IN WP(C)14395/2021.]

¶18

9 ADDL. R9: THE BAR ASSOCIATION,KARUNAGAPPALY, REG. NO.Q 824/2000, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM. ADDL.R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02/03/2022 IN IA.2/2022 IN WP(C)NO.14395/2021.

¶19

10ADDL.R10: THE KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, SALEM-KOCHI-
KANYAKUMARI HIGHWAY, LALAJI JUNCTION, KARUNAGAPPALLI,
KERALA-690 518.
ADDL. R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02/03/2022 IN
IA.3/2022 IN WP(C)NO.14395/2021.
11ADDL-R11 THE SECRETARY
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM IS
SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/11/2022 IN
WPC NO.14395/2021
BY ADVS.
S.RENJITH (SPL. GP.) WITH A.A.G.
SIJU KAMALASANAN, SC, THAZHAVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SUNIL JACOB JOSE
SADCHITH.P.KURUP
J.OM PRAKASH
M.R.SASITH
C.P.ANIL RAJ
R.K.CHIRUTHA
NEELANJANA NAIR
RANJITH E N
PREETI S.
HARIKUMAR P.S.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).5889/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶24

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶25

WP(C) NO. 19727 OF 2021

¶26

PETITIONER:

¶27

AJAIKUMAR VAZHAPPALLY K.V
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.VIKRAMAN PILLAI,KRISHNA SOUTH WEST THAZHAVA P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
BINU GEORGE
HEMALATHA

¶28

RESPONDENT/S:

¶29

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

¶30

2 CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

¶31

3 REGISTRAR (DISTRICT JUDICIARY) HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031

¶32

4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.

¶33

5 MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 518

¶34

6 TAHASILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN-690 518. BY ADVS. S.REJITH (SPL.GP) WITH A.A.G. M.R.SASITH SUNIL JACOB JOSE

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).5889/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶39

FRIDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶40

WP(C) NO. 5889 OF 2022

¶41

PETITIONER:

¶42

MUHAMMED BASHEER A.,AGED 54 YEARS
KATTOOR VEEDU, S.V. MARKET P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690573
BY ADVS.
P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
K.SUDHINKUMAR
S.K.ADHITHYAN
SABU PULLAN
GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶43

RESPONDENTS:

¶44

1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶45

2 THE MUNICIPAL DIRECTOR,DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPALITIES, SWARAJ BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O., NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶46

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM., PIN - 695013

¶47

4 KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM., PIN - 690518

¶48

5 THE SECRETARY,MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518

¶49

6 FELIX BABU, FERNS LAND, CURZON NAGAR - 165, KACHERI JUNCTION, KOLLAM, PIN – 691013

¶50

7 M. ANSAR,SHAJAHAN MANZIL, PADA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518 BY ADVS.

¶51

S. RENJITH (SPL.GP) WITH AAG
C.RAJENDRAN
B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
SIJU KAMALASANAN FOR THAZHAVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SUNIL JACOB JOSE FOR REGISTRAR (DISTRICT JUDICIARY )
J. OM PRAKASH FOR BAR ASSOCIATION KARUNAGAPALLY;
M.R.SASITH FOR KARUNAGAPALLY MUNICIPALITY

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).9382/2022, 14395/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶54

PRESENT

¶55

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶56

FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶57

WP(C) NO. 9382 OF 2022

¶58

PETITIONER:

¶59

FELIX BABU
AGED 69 YEARS,S/O.AMBROSE P FERNS,
RESIDING AT FERNS LAND CURZON NAGAR-165,
KACHERI JUNCTION,KOLLAM-691 013.
BY ADVS.
C.RAJENDRAN
B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶60

RESPONDENTS:

¶61

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶62

2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶63

3 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCAUD, KOWDIAR, 5TH FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶64

4 KARUNAGAPALLY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM-695 018

¶65

5 MUHAMMED BASHEER A, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O MIHAMMED KUNJU, KATTOOR VEDDU, S.V.MARKET P.O. KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 573.

¶66

BY ADVS.
S.RENJITH (SPL.GP) WITH AAG
M.R.SASITH, SC FOR R4

¶67

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).5889/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶68

¶69

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶70

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶71

=========================== WP(C) Nos.14395 &19727 of 2021 & WP(c) Nos.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶72

============================ Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2022

¶73

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶74

The issue involved in this writ petition is regarding the identification and allotment of land for the construction of judicial complex at Karunagappally.

¶75

2. The essential facts are as under:-

¶76

Of the five Courts in Karunagappally, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court and Munsiff's Court are functioning in the Mini Civil Station situated in the heart of the town. The Sub Court and the Fast Track (POCSO) Court are functioning in rented buildings. The Family Court is located at Kuttivattom in Panmana Grama Panchayat at a distance of more than 5 Kms from the civil station. A portion of the Mini Civil Station building will eventually be demolished for widening the National Highway. That will disrupt the functioning of the Magistrate and Munsiff's Court, which are, even otherwise, reeling under space

¶77

¶78

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶79

constraint. There has been a long standing demand for construction of a court complex in Karunagappally. So that all courts can function within one building. The correspondence in this regard between the District Judge, Kollam and the revenue officials started long back. As matters stood thus, the Thazhava Grama Panchayat, as per its decision dated 18.07.2017, decided to allot 39.47 Ares of land for constructing the court complex. The proposed land was found suitable for constructing the court complex. At the Panchayat’s request, the Government, as per G.O.(P) No.55/2018/LSGD dated 6.7.2018 decided to exempt the proposed land from the purview of Section 279(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and to make the land available for constructing the court complex. Thereafter, availability of the land was brought to the notice of the Administrative Judge-in-charge on 17.10.2019. After that, things did not progress as expected. This ultimately resulted in the proposal being dropped. This was intimated to the Government vide letter dated 13.08.2019.

¶80

In the meanwhile, representation was received from one A.Ajayakumar, stating that 149 cents of land in

¶81

¶82

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶83

Karunagappally village belonging to the Kallada Irrigation Project is available for construction of the court complex. This was intimated to the Government as per letter dated 13.08.2019. Later, the District Collector, vide letter dated 31.12.2020, informed the District Judge that the Director of IHRD had intimated that the IHRD will not surrender the land to the judicial department. Hence, that proposal was also dropped.

¶84

The Thazhava Panchayat kept on requesting the District Judge, Kollam to proceed with steps for construction of the court complex in the property surrendered by the Panchayat. This prompted the issuance of a letter to the Government to transfer the land owned by the Thazhava Grama Panchayat to the revenue department and subsequently to the Judicial department for constructing the court complex.

¶85

While things stood thus, the Karunagapally Municipal council decided to surrender 1 Acre and 9 cents of land purchased by it to the judicial department for constructing the court complex. The property offered by the Municipality was purchased by it under a sale deed dated 25.03.2014 and is

¶86

¶87

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶88

therefore in the absolute possession and ownership of the Municipality. The Municipality having expressed its willingness to allot land within Karunagappally town for construction of court complex, the offer was discussed by the Administrative Judge-in-charge of Kollam District with other stakeholders and the land was found to be most suitable. The Municipality’s request for transferring its land to the judicial department is pending before the finance department of the Government.

¶89

WP(c) No.14395 of 2021 is filed by a practicing lawyer of Karunagappally Bar, who wants the court complex to be constructed in the land surrendered by the Thazhava Grama Panchayat. WP(C) No.19727 of 2021 is also filed by a member of the Karunagappally Bar Association, who wants the Court complex to be constructed in 1.5 Acres of land situated in Block No.10 of Karunagappally village. WP(C) No.5889 of 2022 is filed by a public spirited citizen opposing the move for the construction of the court complex in the land purchased by the Municipality. WP(C) No.9382 of 2022 is filed by the person from whom the Municipality purchased the land now offered to be surrendered for constructing the court complex.

¶90

¶91

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶92

Heard Senior Advocates K.P.Satheesan, C.Rajendran, and Hemalatha for the petitioners. Special Government Pleader Sri.S.Renjith for the Government, Adv.Sunil Jacob Jose for the High Court , Adv.M.R. Sasith for the Karunagappally Municipality, Adv.Siju Kamalasan for the Thazhava Grama Panchayat and Adv.Sadchith P. Kurup and Adv.J.Om Prakash for party respondents.

¶93

Learned Senior Counsel contended that the land surrendered by Thazhava Grama Panchayat was found suitable by all concerned, including the Administrative Judge-in-charge. The land was hence transferred to the Revenue Department for constructing the court complex. In such circumstances, the proceedings now initiated for constructing the court complex in the land to be surrendered by the Karunagappally Municipality is a high handed and arbitrary action. The land offered by Karunagappally Municipality was purchased for constructing the private bus stand and having expended money for that purpose, the attempt to construct court complex in that land is illegal. According to the Senior Counsel, construction of court complex

¶94

¶95

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶96

in the heart of the Karunagappally town will only aggravate traffic congestion in the area.

¶97

Adv.C.Rajendran, appearing for the person from whom the Karunagappally Municipality purchased the land, contended that his client had sold the land to the Municipality at a throwaway price on the understanding that the land will be utilised for constructing a private bus stand, which, in turn, will boost the value of the balance land in the vendor’s possession. The vendor intends to construct commercial buildings in the adjacent land, thereby making up for the loss sustained by selling land to the Municipality at a throwaway price. In the sale deed, there is specific recital that the land will not be utilized by the Municipality for any purpose, other than construction of a private bus stand. As such, the Municipality has no legal right to allot the land for construction of court complex.

¶98

Adv.Sasisth Panicker appearing for Karunagappally Municipality submitted that the Municipality had decided to allot its land for construction of court complex to subserve public interest. The land is in the heart of Karunagappally Town. On the other hand, the land surrendered by Thazhava Grama

¶99

¶100

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶101

Panchayat is far away from the town. It is contended that the vendor cannot impose a restrictive clause in the sale deed. Moreover, the vendor has already approached the Civil Court seeking to enforce the restrictive clause in the sale deed.

¶102

Adv. Sunil Jacob Jose appearing for the High Court submitted that, although Thazhava Grama Panchayat surrendered the land and Government issued an order exempting the land under Section 272 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, no progress was achieved thereafter. Therefore, the High Court gave up the proposal and decided to search for an alternative site. At that juncture, the Karunagappally Municipality came forward with the offer. The extent of the land offered by the Municipality is having more extent than the land surrendered by Thazhava Grama Panchayat. Moreover, the land is situated in Karunagapally Town itself, thereby making it easy for the public, the lawyers, the staff and the judges to reach the Court. After considering these aspects and based on the discussions which the Administrative Judge-in-charge had with the stakeholders, the High Court decided to proceed with

¶103

¶104

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶105

the land offered by the Municipality. The Government is also pursuing the matter earnestly.

¶106

Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the request of the Karunagappally Municipality for transferring its land to the judicial department is under active consideration.

¶107

From the arguments advanced, it is evident that at

¶108

the initial stage the land surrendered by Thazhava Grama Panchayat was found more suitable and hence further steps were taken with respect to that land. The proposal was later given up by the High court when no further action was forthcoming after issuance of the order exempting the land from Section 272 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for accepting the Municipality’s offer, the land being larger in extent and more suitable. The Panchayat cannot contend that the High Court and Government are estopped from constructing the court complex in any land other than the land surrendered by the Panchayat. A restrictive clause in the sale deed executed by the petitioner in WP(C) No.9382 of 2022 cannot also stand in the way of the Municipality transferring the land to the judicial department for

¶109

¶110

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶111

constructing the court complex. The major stakeholders, viz. the High Court, the Government and the Municipality having decided to construct the court complex in the Municipality’s land, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the decision, unless the decision is so patently arbitrary and irrational that no prudent person would take such a decision. I have no hesitation to hold that the decision is well thought out and hence not justiciable. The demand for a court complex at Karunagappally is pending since 1995 and it will be in the interest of all concerned to give a quietus to the dispute and commence construction at the earliest.

¶112

In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed, leaving it open for the Government, the High Court and the Karunagappally Municipality to hasten the process for transfer of the land offered by the Municipality to the judicial department and take steps for constructing the court complex at the earliest. The above objective can be obtained only if all the stakeholders work in tandem.

¶113

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶114

¶115

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶116

¶117

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14395/2021

¶118

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶119

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECISION` `TAKEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS ITEM NO.17` `AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 18.07.2017`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE SUB` `JUDGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TO THE DISTRICT` `JUDGE, KOLLAM DATED 2.8.2017`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1/1 TAKEN BY` `THE THAZHAVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE ITS` `MEETING HELD ON 14.08.2017`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE` `DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM TO THE DISTRICT` `COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DATED 1.11.2017`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION` `ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS G.O(P) NO.` `55/2018/LSGD DATED 6.7.2018`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHASSAR PREPARED BY` `THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THAZHAVA ALONG WITH` `THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY DATED 28.10.2018`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE` `DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM TO THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2019`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE VIDEO` `CONFERENCE HELD ON 17.10.2019`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit R5(1)`	`PHOTOCOPY OF OM NO.D9A(1)-69078/2000 DATED` `30-11-2019 OF THIS RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit R5(2)`	`PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.D9A(1)-69078/2000` `DATED 26-06-2020 OF THIS RESPONDENT` `ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES` `DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit R5(3)`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2-8-` `2021 OF ADV. AJAIKUMAR.`
`Exhibit R5(4)`	`PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.D9A(1)-` `69078/2000 DATED 20-11-2021 OF THIS` `RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit R10(a)`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1 TAKEN` `BY THE MUNICIPALITY IN THE MEETING HELD ON` `7/2/2022`
`Exhibit R10(b)`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.859 OF` `2014 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY SRO DATED 25/3/2014`

¶120

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶121

¶122

Exhibit R10(C)THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT PAID
FOR 2019-20
Exhibit R10(d)THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
PROPERTY
Exhibit R10(E)THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
Exhibit R1O(F)THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, KARUNAGAPPALLY TO THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED
10/2/2022

¶123

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶124

¶125

¶126

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶127

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
18.11.2014
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST
PETITION NO.PLP.337/15 DATED 30.3.2015
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.D9(A)-69078/2000 DATED 13.8.2015
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
C-9558/14 DATED 1.6.2015
Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
2.8.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE HON'BLE CHIEF
MINISTER
Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE REGISTRAR SUBORDINATE
JUDICIARY DATED 2.8.2021

¶128

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶129

¶130

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5889/2022

¶131

`PETITIONER EX`	`HIBITS`
`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 8(1) DATED` `17-12-2012 TAKEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `MUNICIPALITY`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED` `BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND 6TH` `RESPONDENT DATED 22-03-2014`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED REGISTERED IN` `FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE 6TH` `RESPONDENT AS NO. 859/14/I DATED 25-03-` `2014 OF KARUNAGAPPALY SUB REGISTRY`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1 DATED` `7-2-2022 TAKEN BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL` `OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DISSENTING NOTE GIVEN BY` `SOME OF THE MEMBERS INCLUDING THE 7TH`
	`RESPONDENT DATED 7-2-2022 TO THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.` `(P) NO. 55/2018/LSGD DATED 6-7-2018`
`Exhibit-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 14-02-2022`
`Exhibit8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED`
	`BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE` `PETITIONER DATED 14-02-2022`

¶132

WP(C) No.14395 & 19727 of 2021; WP(C) No.5889 & 9382 of 2022

¶133

¶134

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9382/2022

¶135

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶136

`Exhibit`	`P1` `A` `TRUE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF`	`THE`
	`DECISION/RESOLUTION` `OF` `THE` `RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.2014`	`4TH`
`Exhibit`	`P2` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT` `22.3.2014`	`DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P3` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED` `25.3.2014`	`DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P4` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ROUGH SKET`	`CH`
`Exhibit`	`P5` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESEN`	`TATION`
	`OF THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESP` `DATED 4.3.2015`	`ONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P6` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST` `PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT` `15.5.2015`	`OF THE` `DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P7` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESEN` `BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESP` `DATED 24.2.2021`	`TATION` `ONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P8` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOS S`	`HOWING`
	`THE BUS STAND AND THE PROP` `CEMENTED LAND`	`ERTIES`
`Exhibit`	`P9` `A TRUE PHOTO SHOWING THE BUILDI` `TOILET ETC`	`NG FOR`
`Exhibit`	`P10` `A TRUE PHOTO OF THE INDICATION` `AND THE SURROUNDINGS`	`BOARDS`
`Exhibit`	`P11` `A TRUE PHOTO SHOWING THE PUBLIC` `AND ENTRANCE TOWARDS THE BUS STAND`	`ROAD`
`Exhibit`	`P12` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESO` `DATED 7.2.2022 OF THE 4TH RESPONDE`	`LUTION` `NT`
`Exhibit`	`P13` `A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVE` `ORDER GO(F) NO 55/2018/LSGD` `6.7.2018`	`RNMENT` `DATED`

Muhammed Basheer a. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Basheer a. 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

Fr. Joby K Antony, Vs Union of India

Mohandasan K. Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Paulose, Vs State of Kerala

Felix Babu Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Azad Vs State of Kerala

Victim, Vs State of Kerala