Partly allowed

N.Vikraman Pillai, v. Revenue Divisional Officer /Sub Collector

Kerala HC25 Jul 2023WP(C)/7071/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected writ petitions, the Court addressed enforcement of an eviction notice against a Temple Committee and a request by the Devaswom Board to rectify revenue records. The Court held that the notice should not be enforced pending a decision on the rectification application and ordered the Revenue authorities to decide the deputation request within six months after hearing the petitioner'

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order deferred pending decision; 2nd respondent directed to decide Ext.P7 rectification application within 6 months after hearing petitioner on right of way.

N.Vikraman Pillai, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer /Sub… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO. 7071 OF 2020

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

N.VIKRAMAN PILLAI, AGED 67 YEARS,

¶6

PUNNOOR KIZHAKKETHIL, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O., PORUVAZHI, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. K.SASIKUMAR

¶8

SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND SHRI.REJU PRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER /SUB COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE/SUB COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 008.

¶11

2 TAHASILDAR (LR), KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 519.

¶12

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, PORUVAZHI, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT -690 519.

¶13

4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SOORANADU POLICE STATION, CHAKKUVALLY P.O., KOLLAM - 690 520.

¶15

¶16

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶17

6 ASSISTANT DEVSASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, KARUNGAPPALLY - 690 523.

¶18

7 SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, CHAKKUVALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 520.

¶19

8 TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SREE DHARMASHASTHA TEMPLE, PORUVAZHI, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, R.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, VISAKHOM, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O., PORUVAZHI, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 520.

¶20

9 K.RAJAN, SECRETARY, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SREE DHARMASHASTHA TEMPLE, PORUVAZHI, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KULATHINTE MELATHIL HOUSE, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O., PORUVAZHI, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 520.

¶21

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 12.07.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).22529/2020, THE COURT ON 25.07.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶24

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶30

TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO. 22529 OF 2020

¶31

PETITIONER:

¶32

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶33

NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 003, REP.BY IT'S SECRETARY.

¶34

BY ADV G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶35

RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶37

COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691013.

¶38

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691013.

¶39

3 THE TAHASILDAR (L.R.) KUNNATHUR TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION BUILDING, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-690521.

¶40

4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN-690 521.

¶41

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN-690 520.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶44

6 N.VIKRAMAN PILLAI, AGED 67 YEARS PUNNOOR KIZHAKKETHIL, AMBALATHUMBHAGAM P.O., PORUVAZHI, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.*

¶45

*SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.02.2021 IN WPC 22529/20. R1 TO R5 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY ADV SRI.K.SASIKUMAR

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 12.07.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).7071/2020, THE COURT ON 25.07.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

¶51

W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020:- The petitioner is residing in the residential building situated on 65 cents of land comprised in resurvey No.672/1 and 672/2 of of Poruvazhi Village. This property is situated besides Sasthamcotta-Adoor public road. He was using the pathway starting from the eastern Panchayat road and runs across the revenue poramboke land. Along the said Panchayat road the petitioners and others in the locality can reach the Sasthacottah-Adoor public road. The 8^th respondentTemple Advisory Committee on 13.01.2018 put up a rubble wall blocking the pathway at its entrance from the eastern Panchayat road. Passage of the petitioner, which he had been using for long was thereby blocked and taking vehicles to his house has become impossible. Members of the Temple Advisory Committee had also encroached upon the revenue poramboke land, which has an area of 83.70 Ares in re-survey No.671/5 in Block 6 of Poruvazhi Village and erected structures unauthorisedly, apart from putting up the said rubble wall.

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶54

1.1 Pursuant to complaints in that regard, the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar initiated action under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 and issued Ext.P6 order directing the 8^th respondent-Temple Advisory Committee to remove the aforesaid rubble wall. Ext.P7 is the Form-C notice issued by the 2^nd respondent asking the 8^th respondent to remove the said construction. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to enforce and execute EXts.P6 and P7.

¶55

1.2 Respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed a statement to the effect that Ext.P6 order was issued against the Temple Advisory Committee and it does not bind the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is pointed out that in the proceedings pending before the learned Ombudsman a direction to the Commissioner of Travancore Devaswom Board was issued to

¶56

take appropriate action for challenging Ext.P6. The contentions in paragraph No.6 and 7 of the said statement read as follows:-

¶57

¶58

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶59

“6. The second respondent thereafter filed a report before the first respondent on 21.03.2018 and thereafter the first respondent directed the 2^nd respondent to initiate land conservancy proceedings against the office bearers of the Poruvazhi Sree Dharma Sastha Temple Advisory Committee. Thereafter hearing notice was issued to the President of the Temple Advisory Committee and Travancore Dewaswom Board and hearing was held on 22.04.2018.

¶60

During the hearing the Travancore Dewaswom Board argued that the land in question is that of the Dewaswom Board and was included as puramboke land in resurvey records by mistake. Hence 30 days time was granted to the Dewaswom to produce documents in support of the claim. Even after the expiry of the said time limit the Dewaswom could not produce any records to substantiate their claim. Therefore eviction notice in 'C' form along with proceedings No. LC No. 10/2018 dated 28.12.2018 was served to the Temple Advisory Committee. Thereafter the said committee filed a complaint as No.210/2018 before the Hon'ble Ombudsman, Travancore and Cochin Dewaswom Board and considering the petition the Hon'ble Ombudsman directed to maintain status-quo till final decision is taken on the matter. In the above said circumstances, the land conservancy proceedings is temporarily stopped.”

¶61

¶62

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶63

1.3 A reply-affidavit was filed by the petitioner controverting the contentions in the aforesaid statement. The petitioner produced Exts.P11 and P12 along with the replyaffidavit. An additional affidavit was subsequently filed by the petitioner producing therewith Exts.P13 to P16, which are the documents of his title to the property in his possession.

¶64

1.4 The learned Senior Government Pleader, who is appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 produced a report of the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar along with a sketch in obedience to the direction of this Court dated 07.12.2022 in W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020.

¶65

W.P.(C) No.22529 of 2020.- The Travancore

¶66

Devaswom Board is the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that 83.70 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.671/5 (old survey No.111/1) of Bock No.6 of Poruvazhi Village belongs to Ambalathumbhagom Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. A public road happened to be laid across the property of the Temple. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.231 of 1992 before the Munsiff’s Court, Sathamcotta when there was an attempt

¶67

¶68

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶69

to trespass upon the said property by respondent Nos.1 to 4. The said suit was decreed in part. An appeal, A.S.No.169 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner, but the same was dismissed by the III Additional District Court, Kollam as per the judgment dated 16.03.2006. Although there is a road separating the compound where the Temple is situated and the eastern property, which is comprised in re-survey No.671/5, the said eastern property belongs to the Temple. In the register showing the details of the Devaswom properties that fact has been mentioned. However, as a result of the mistake on the part of the revenue and resurvey authorities, the said property happened to be shown

¶70

as poramboke land. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application before the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar to rectify the said mistake in the revenue records, a copy of which is Ext.P7. The learned Ombudsman for the Travancore Devaswom Board instructed the petitioner to challenge the order of the 3^rd respondent with respect to the said property. Action for challenging the said order is under

¶71

¶72

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶73

contemplation. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks in this Writ Petition a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to take up and pass orders in Ext.P7 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶74

2.1. Additional 6^th respondent was suo motu impleaded as per the order dated 17.02.201. The additional 6^th is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020. He has filed a counter affidavit reiterating his contentions in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020. He further contended that the decree in O.S.No.231 of 1992 does not relate to the property in question and that the relief claimed by the petitioner in the suit in respect of this property was declined. The 6^th respondent would contend that the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Ext.R6(a) order, which is Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020. The petitioner without challenging that order under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, approached this Court claiming an untenable relief of rectification of revenue records. The 6^th respondent thereby seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶75

¶76

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶77

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.7071 of 2020, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶78

Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.7021 of 2020 is an order of the Thahsildar (LR), Kunnathoor Taluk purportedly issued under Section 11 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. This order directs the members of the Temple Advisory Committee, Poruvashi Sree Dharma Sastha Temple to remove a rubble wall constructed in an area of 0.05 sq.m. of property, which is a part of 83.75 Ares of land comprised in survey No.671/1 and 672/2 of Poruvazhi Village. In pursuance of Ext.P6, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P7 notice in Form No.C. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.7071 of 2020 is that despite issuance of Exts.P6 and P7, no steps for removal of the rubble wall was taken by the 2^nd respondent or other revenue authorities. The petitioner submitted repeated representations as per Exts.P8, P9 and 10, but no positive result was yielded.

¶79

¶80

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶81

Therefore, he has filed the Writ Petition seeking enforcement of EXts.P6 and P7 orders.

¶82

The Travancore Devaswom Board stakes a claim that 83.70 of land comprised in re-survey No.671/5 in Block No.6 of Poruvazhi Village belongs to Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, Poruvazhi. It is an undisputed fact that the said property is now noted as puramboke land in the revenue records. The Travancore Devaswom Board would contend that the said property was Devaswom puramboke land as per the register of Government Devaswom lands, and a wrong entry in that regard created the dispute. It is contended that as a result of the fault on the part of the revenue authorities, the said property happened to be classified as Puramboke land.

¶83

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶84

Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that such a mistake had resulted in laying a public road at the instance of the Panchayat along this property and to construct Village Office building on a part of the Temple property. It is further urged that the 3^rd respondent-Thahsildar submitted a report

¶85

¶86

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶87

before the learned Ombudsman in complaint No.210 of 2018 wherein it was admitted that such a mistake was occurred and the Devaswom Board has to take steps for rectification of the said mistake.

¶88

O.S.No.321 of 1992 is a suit filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board before the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta seeking a decree of injunction both prohibitory and mandatory. Ext.P3 is a copy of the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1998 in the said suit. The property scheduled in the said suit is 1 acre and 45 cents of land. It is described that the Temple situates in that land. B schedule is a part of A schedule where the Village Office building was constructed. The plot where the Temple is situated was demarcated as plot No.1 in Ex.C2(a) plan submitted by the Commissioner. That plan was attached to the decree in that suit. The prohibitory decree was granted in respect of the said plot No.1. The prohibitory injunction with respect to plaint B schedule property and the Village Office building was declined. That decree is against the State of Kerala. Whether plot No.1 in the

¶89

¶90

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶91

aforesaid Ext.C2(a) sketch regarding which the prohibitory injunction was granted is different from 83.70 Ares of land in re-survey No.671/5 or whether the said property takes in whole of 83.70 Ares of land regarding which the present dispute is being agitated in the Writ Petitions is not ascertainable from the materials available on record.

¶92

A location sketch prepared by the 2^nd respondent and produced in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020 shows the lie of the said properties. From it it appears that 83.70 Ares of land in survey No.671/5 takes in both the plots where the Temple is situated and the eastern plot through which is the pathway claimed by the petitioner. Existence and usage of a pathway along the said eastern plot is confirmed by the 2^nd respondent in his report. From the materials on record and submissions made by the counsel on both sides, it is evident that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020 has no way other than the way through the property in dispute. The Travancore Devaswom Board has a definite contention that the said 83.70 Ares of land in re-survey No.651/5 belongs to Sree Dharma

¶93

¶94

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶95

Sastha Temple, Poruvazhi, and this property was classified as puramboke land only due to the mistake or wrong on the part of the revenue officials.

¶96

Ext.P6 order produced in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020 was issued by the 2^nd respondent in exercise of the powers under Section 11 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Of course, it is against the Temple Advisory Committee Chairman and not against the Travancore Devaswom Board. But, the order is in respect of the property over which the Devaswom stakes claim. The order was passed without giving notice to the Travancore Devaswom Board. The fact that there occurred mistakes in the revenue records in describing it as the poramboke land is admitted by the revenue officials. In such circumstances, it can only be said that Ext. P6 produced in W.P(c) No. 7071 of 2020 cannot stand in the way of the revenue officials taking a decision on the request of the Travancore Devaswom Board for carrying out correction in the revenue records in respect of 83.70 of land comprised in resurvey No.671/5 in Block No.6 of Poruvazhi Village.

¶97

¶98

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶99

Hence, the Board has every right to apply for getting corrected the mistakes said to have been crept in the revenue records. At the same time, if the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020 has a right of pathway along the property in dispute, the same shall also be protected. The 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.22529 of 2020, who is the 2^nd respondent in the other Writ Petition, is therefore obliged to consider and take an appropriate decision in Ext.P7 application submitted by the Travancore Devaswom Board. As stated hereinbefore Exts.P6 and P7 in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020 would not stand in the way of deciding the said application. A decision on Ext.P7 application submitted by the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be taken by the 2^nd respondent within a period of six months. The said respondent shall take the decision after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7071 of 2020 and shall consider his claim of having a right of way along the property in dispute. Ext.P6 order shall not be enforced till such a decision is taken.

¶100

¶101

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶102

These Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶103

Sd/-

¶104

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶105

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶106

dkr

¶107

¶108

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶109

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7071/2020

¶110

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶111

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 31/1/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31/1/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/5/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1/9/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/12/2018 IN THE CASE NO.LC.10/2018. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2/9/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/11/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶112

¶113

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶114

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/12/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15/02/2018 MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 85/1976 DATED 11/01/1976 OF KADAMBANAD SUB REGISTRY EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3239 OF 04/11/1986 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1929 OF 25/06/2001

¶115

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2476 DATED 05/08/1991

¶116

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶117

EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2020 PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARDS IN COMPLAINT NO.210 OF 2018.

¶118

EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE MBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARDS EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE LAND SPECIAL OFFICER, TDB TO THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶119

¶120

W.P.(C) Nos.7071 and 22529 of 2020

¶121

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22529/2020

¶122

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶123

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE TEMPLE PROPERTY

¶124

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF CHAKKUVALLY GROUP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶125

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24/08/1998 IN O.S.NO.231/92 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA.

¶126

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DETAILS OF SARKAR DEVASWOM PROPERTIES. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER

¶127

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2020 PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARDS IN COMPLAINT NO.210/2018.

¶128

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16/10/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶129

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶130

EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2018 IN LC NO.10.2018 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPOINDENT. EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM C NOTICE DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO PRESIDENT OF THE TAC.

N.Vikraman Pillai, v. Revenue Divisional Officer /Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Vikraman Pillai, v. Revenue Divisional Officer /Sub Collector

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

Rajesh a. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Divya Jose Vs Steaphen Antony Venansious

Divya Jose Vs Steaphen Antony Venansious

Travancore Devaswom Board - Tdb Vs Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit

Sree Parasuramaswamy Kshethra Vikasana Samithy Vs the Secretary, Travancored Devaswom Board

The Temple Advisory Committee (Under Orders of Dissolution) Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board