Dismissed

Sivakumar Lekshmanan v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC28 Nov 2023WP(C)/8042/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court is titled on maintaining jurisdiction before the Land Revenue Commissioner against a Collector's revision order under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The court dismisses writ petitions challenging orders declaring temple constructions on a public pathway as encroachments on public (purambokku) land, finding no illegality in the authorities' directives.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed; the impugned orders under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 are sustained.

Sivakumar Lekshmanan Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2841 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SREE VENKITACHALAPATHY DEVASWOM AGED 47 YEARS PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 682 006 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT KANNAN.T.N., AGED 47, S/O.NANDAKUMAR AMBALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.V.D.STREET, PALLURUTHY.P.O. KOCHI, PIN - 682006 BY ADVS. E.S.SONI R.KRISHNA RAJ, KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR RESMI A.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

¶10

PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD, OPPOSITE ZOO, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶12

1ST FLOOR OF CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682030

¶13

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶14

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001

¶15

4 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)

¶16

CIVIL LANE ROAD, ECHAMUKU,CHEMBUMUKU, KOCHI, PIN - 682021

¶17

5 COCHIN CORPORATION

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CANNON SHED ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

¶19

6 SANDEEP DILEEP

¶20

S/O.DILEEP SANDEEP VIHAR, 'SIVANIDHI' NEAR SVD TEMPLE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, PIN - 682006

¶21

7 SREEKUMAR

¶22

S/O.MANI 'VRINDHAVAN', NEAR SVD TEMPLE PALLURUTHY, KOCHI,PIN-682006

¶23

BY ADVS.JANARDHANA SHENOY

¶24

T.MADHU, C.R.SARADAMANI(S-891) SHAHID AZEEZ(K/000630/2015) RESHMA SANTHOSH(K/001808/2019) RENJISH S. MENON(K/001486/2021)

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

GP - RIYAL DEVASSY

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8042/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶29

:2:

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶33

TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶34

WP(C) NO. 8042 OF 2023

¶35

PETITIONER:

¶36

SIVAKUMAR LEKSHMANAN AGED 48 YEARS MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006

¶37

BY ADVS. P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)

¶38

RESPONDENTS:

¶39

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

¶40

2 THE DEVASWOM OFFICER AZHAKIYAKAVU DEVASWOM, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006

¶41

3 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) CIVIL LANE ROAD, ECHAMUKKU, CHEMBUMUKKU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021

¶42

4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001

¶43

5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶44

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶45

:3:

¶46

	CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD	, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
6	THE LAND REVENUE COMMIS PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN	SIONER MUSEUM JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN, - 695033
7	STATE OF KERALA
	REPRESENTED BY THE PRIN DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT PIN - 695001	CIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIS	WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)	HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.11.2023,	ALONG WITH WP(C).2841	/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED T	HE FOLLOWING:

¶47

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

:4:

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶52

¶53

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2023

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

W.P.(C) No.2841 of 2023 is filed challenging Exts.P4, P8,

¶56

P10 and P14 orders, whereas W.P.(C) No.8042 of 2023 is filed challenging Ext.P9, P10, P11 and P12.

¶57

W.P. (C) No.2841 of 2023 is treated as the leading case and brief facts of the said case are as follows:

¶58

The petitioner is a temple situated in Survey No.862/2. The property having an extent of 30.40 Ares (83 Cents) has been granted to the temple by the Maharaja of Kochi and this property was part of Azhakiyakavu Devaswom and based on this grant made by the ruler of Cochin Kingdom, necessary changes were made in the revenue records and as such the property in which the temple is situated is in the name of the temple. There is a pathway that leads to the temple, which is situated in Sy No.862/4 of Rameshwaram Village, shown as Purambokku pathway. It is contended that the said pathway is the only ingress

¶59

:5:

¶60

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶61

and egress the temple has from the Vela Velipparambu, which is situated in Survey No.1022. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entire extent of property in Survey No.1022 and 862/4 belongs to Azhakiyakavu Devaswom. It is further stated that the said pathway situated in Sy.No. 862/4 is used by the party respondents also for their ingress and egress to their respective residential houses which are situated on the southern and northern sides of the above said pathway. The 6^th respondent is residing on the southern side of this pathway and the 7^th respondent was residing in a building as a tenant, which is situated on the southern side of this pathway. The 7^th respondent is no more a resident of the said house. As such, only the 6^th respondent is remaining as a complainant in this litigation. A complaint was filed before the revenue authorities to the effect that the petitioner has encroached into the Purambokku pathway situated in Survey No.862/4 and constructed an Arch at the eastern end of the pathway, whereby obstructing the user of the pathway. A complaint was also filed by the 7^th respondent to remove the steps which is situated on the eastern end of the pathway, which the petitioner claims to be in existence from time

¶62

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶63

:6:

¶64

immemorial. The complaint of the respondents is that because of the existence of the steps on the eastern end of the pathway, the vehicles could not be taken to their homes. The petitioner relies on Exts.P1 and P2 documents in support of their contentions. On the complaint preferred by the respondents, Ext.P3 order was issued by the 4^th respondent wherein a finding was entered that the property comprised in Survey No.862/4 is a Purambokku Idavazhi in the Basic Tax Register and it is in the ownership of the 5^th respondent Corporation and thereupon, direction was issued to the Secretary of the 5^th respondent Corporation to remove the unauthorised construction undertaken in the property comprised in Sy. No. 862/4 of the Rameswaram Village. A further direction was also issued that if the Secretary of the 5^th respondent Corporation makes a request for fixing the boundaries of the Puramboke land, necessary steps should be taken by the Village Officer, Rameswaram in that regard. Consequently, Ext.P4 communication was issued by the 4^th respondent to the 5^th respondent Corporation to take necessary steps to remove the encroachment. Ext.P4 communication and other orders are challenged in the other writ petition filed as W.P.(C) No.8042 of

¶65

:7:

¶66

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶67

Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, Ext.P5 appeal was preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, the 3^rd respondent herein. The 3^rd respondent, as per Ext.P8 order, rejected the appeal submitted by the petitioner, issuing certain directions to see that the safety of the school students using the road is protected. Aggrieved by the same, a revision petition was filed before the 2^nd respondent, which was also rejected by Ext.P10. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, Ext.P12 appeal was preferred before the 1^st respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P14 order taking a stand that an appeal is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶68

The specific contention of the petitioner is that the property situated in Survey No.862 is clearly shown as the property of Azhakiyakavu Devaswom and therefore, the entire property situated in Survey No.862 belongs to Azhakiyakavu Devaswom and therefore, it is not a Purambokku land as claimed by the authorities. It is admitted that the sub-divided property having an extent of 5.26 Ares which is sub-divided as 862/4 is shown as Purambokku vazhi and the said property is earmarked

¶69

:8:

¶70

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶71

as to be used as a vazhi to the temple of the petitioner. The property comprised in Sy. No.1022 of Rameswaram Village also belongs to Azhakiyakavu Devaswom and therefore, the construction of arch made by the petitioner in the eastern end of this pathway cannot be treated as an encroachment or unauthorised construction and it is further contended that the construction of the arch as well as the steps have been made in the property in Survey No.1022 which is not a purambokku land and it is a land recorded in the revenue records as 'belonging to Azhakiyakavu Devaswom under the Cochin Devaswom Board.' The allegation that the steps were constructed at the eastern end of the pathway is not correct inasmuch as the said steps were in existence from time immemorial. A perusal of Ext.P7 would reveal that the arch was constructed as early as in the year 198990, which is now more than 30 years old. On that basis, the petitioner contended that there is no encroachment or any unauthorised construction and the complaint raised by the party respondents is without any basis. The petitioner would further contend that Ext.P15 suit is also filed by the residents of the locality seeking an injunction not to prevent them from taking the

¶72

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶73

:9:

¶74

vehicle through the road in question. The petitioner on the strength of Ext.P18 photographs and Ext P19 sketch would submit that the arch as well as the steps are not constructed in the pathway but in the property situated in Sy. No.1022.

¶75

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents Nos. 6 and 7, wherein it is contended that the property having an extent of 5.26 Ares in survey No.862/4 of Rameswaram Village which is shown as 'Puramboke Edavazhi' in the revenue records which is lying in east-west direction connecting the National Highway, used by the local people for their access to the outside world. Twelve residential houses, a clinic, an Akshaya centre, a grocery shop and a school managed by the petitioner are situated on either side of the above puramboke property, which is being used as road access by the local people. On the western end of the above said puramboke road is the Sri. Venkitachalapathy Temple at Palluruthy. It is contended that the arch was constructed without obtaining any permit from the Kochi Municipal Corporation, at the eastern end of the above puramboke road, where it connects with the National Highway. After the construction of the arch, some persons claiming through

¶76

:10:

¶77

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶78

Sri. Venkitachalapathy temple made attempts to convert the puramboke road for the exclusive use of the above said temple and the school managed by them. Thereupon the respondents submitted various representations before the Revenue as well as the Kochi Corporation authorities requesting them to remove the obstructions and to restore the property for the use of the public. Due to inaction on the part of the Revenue and the Kochi Municipal Corporation, the respondents have approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27351 of 2019, which was disposed of as per Ext.R7(a) judgment dated 22.01.2020 whereby a direction was issued to the Tahsildar, Kochi Taluk to conduct enquiry within 6 weeks with notice to the parties and if any encroachment is found, necessary direction was ordered to be issued to the Kochi Municipal Corporation to remove the encroachment. In compliance with the said direction, an enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar, Kochi Taluk and passed the order dated 10.03.2020 finding that the writ petitioner has encroached upon 5.26 Ares of land property comprised in Survey No.862/4 of Rameswaram Village which is a puramboke edavazhi as per the revenue records. Thereupon the Secretary of the Kochi Municipal

¶79

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶80

:11:

¶81

Corporation was directed to take steps to remove the encroachments as per Ext.P4. The said order was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.18467 of 2020, which was dismissed as per Ext.R7(c) judgment. Later on, the petitioner constructed blocks under the Arch totally prohibiting vehicular traffic through the above Puramboke road. After filing appeal before the Revenue Divisional officer, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of the said appeal and this Court as per Ext.R7(d) order, issued a direction to consider and pass orders in the appeal within a period of 3 months. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to construct concrete blocks under the Arch totally prohibiting vehicular traffic. Thereupon a review petition was filed in W.P.(C) No.22321 of 2021 seeking to review Ext.R7(d) order wherein Ext.R7(e) order was passed directing both parties to ensure that they do not alter the lie or nature of the property in question and that nothing is conducted therein to alter its status as available on that day, until the Revenue Divisional Officer passes orders on the appeal preferred. In the meanwhile the petitioner also filed a review petition as R. P. No. 1054 of 2022, to review the judgment in W.P.(C) No.18467 of 2020, ie., Ext.R7(c)

¶82

:12:

¶83

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶84

judgment, and this Court was pleased to pass an order that the question regarding the interest and title of the property cannot be decided in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the remedy of the petitioner to protect the nature of interest of the property lies elsewhere and the petitioner will be free to take appropriate steps in this regard. It is contended that even going by the averments in the writ petition, the contention of the petitioner is that the property belongs to Azhakiyakavu Devaswom which is a temple coming under the Kochi Devaswom Board and the petitioner cannot step into the shoes of the Azhakiyakavu Devaswom to contend that the property belongs to Azhakiyakavu Devaswom. Several representations were preferred by the party respondents and general public as is evident from Ext. R7(k) regarding the encroachment. In view of the same, the party respondents would contend that it is a clear case of encroachment on the Puramboke land and the impugned orders are liable to be sustained.

¶85

The 4^th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit wherein it is contended that though the petitioner claims that the land in Survey No.862/4 of Rameswaram Village belongs to the

¶86

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶87

:13:

¶88

Azhakiyakavu Dewaswom as per the settlement register, on verification of the BTR and Settlement Register, 5.26 ares of land in Survey No.862/4 of Rameswaram Village was included in the 'Puramboke Edavazhi and this public land is vested in the Cochin Municipal corporation and as per the Revenue records and that the road has an average width of more than 4 metres and is sufficient for vehicular traffic and the Devaswom has no right to obstruct the public using the road.

¶89

Similar contentions were raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8042 of 2023 and supported the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for W.P.(C) No. 2841 of 2023.

¶90

Heard the rival contentions of both sides.

¶91

The 1^st respondent Land Revenue Commissioner issued Ext.P14 order holding that an appeal is not maintainable before the said authority against the order passed by the District Collector dated 15.11.2022. Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 deals with appeal and revision, which reads as follows:

¶92

16. Appeal and revision. (1) Any person aggrieved by any

¶93

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶94

:14:

¶95

decision or order under this Act of any officer authorised under section 15 may appeal,-

¶96

(a) where such officer is the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Collector: Provided that no such appeal shall lie in any case where the order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on appeal under clause (b); and

¶97

(b) In all other cases, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the case may be may pass such order on the appeal as he thinks fit.

¶98

(2) The Collector may either suo motu or on application revise any decision made or order passed under this Act by any officer authorised under section 15:

¶99

Provided that where such officer is the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Collector shall not on application revise any decision made or order passed otherwise than on appeal: Provided further that the Collector shall not revise any decision or order if an appeal against such decision or order is pending or if the time for preferring appeal, if any, against such decision or order has not expired.

¶100

(3) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the collector under this Act (otherwise than on appeal or revision) may appeal to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue may pass such order on the appeal as it thinks fit.

¶101

(4) The Board of Revenue may either suo motu or on application revise any order passed by the Collector on appeal.

¶102

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶103

:15:

¶104

(5) The Government may either suo motu or on application revise any order passed by the Board of Revenue on appeal.

¶105

(6) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section, (4) or subsection (5) without giving the party who may be affected thereby an opportunity of being heard.

¶106

(7) Pending disposals of any appeal or revision under this Act, the appellate authority or the revising authority, as the case may be, may suspend the execution of the decision or order appealed against or sought to be revised.

¶107

Going by Section 16 (1)(b), when the order is passed by the Tahsildar, an appeal will lie before the Revenue Divisional Officer, against which a revision will lie before the District Collector, as provided under Section 16(2) and the proviso to which mandates that the Collector can revise any decision made on the order passed otherwise than on appeal. Against the order passed by the District Collector otherwise than on appeal or revision, may appeal to the Land Revenue Commissioner and Section 16(4) mandates that the Commissioner of Land Revenue can suo motu or on application revise any order passed by the Collector on appeal. Since the order passed by the Collector is not on an

¶108

:16:

¶109

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶110

appeal, but on a revision preferred, the Act does not mandate consideration of the appeal by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. Therefore, the stand taken in Ext.P14 that no revision or appeal will lie before the Land Revenue Commissioner on an order passed by the Collector on an appeal, is only to be sustained.

¶111

Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that the construction of the steps as well as the arch is made only in the property comprised in Sy. No.1022 and therefore, the contention of the party respondents and Government, which held that the construction is undertaken in the property comprised in Sy. No.862/4 of Rameswaram Village is without any basis. A perusal of the impugned orders will reveal that there is a specific finding that the property comprised in Sy. No.862/4 of Rameswaram Village is a puramboke idavazhy as per the BTR and which is in the exclusive possession of the 5^th respondent Kochi Municipal Corporation. A perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that the direction issued by the authority is to remove the unauthorised encroachment in Sy. No. 862/4 of Rameswaram Village. In the writ petitions also it is admitted that the sub-divided property

¶112

:17:

¶113

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶114

having an extent of 5.26 Ares which is sub-divided as 862/4 is shown as puramboke vazhi. A specific contention taken by the petitioner is that the arch as well as the steps are situated in Sy. No.1022. All the authorities categorically found that the property having extent of 5.26 Ares which is sub-divided as 862/2 is a puramboke vazhi. It is the case of the official respondent that the said puramboke vazhi shown in the BTR, is vested with the 5^th respondent Kochi Corporation. The petitioner cannot have any exclusive claim over the 5.26 Ares comprised in Sy. No. 862/2 of Rameswaram Village, which is admittedly a Puramboke land vested with the 5^th respondent Kochi Corporation and they cannot undertake any construction activities or put any obstruction to user of the said pathway comprised in Sy. No.862/4 of Rameswaram Village having an extent of 5.26 Ares. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the party respondents, they have been using this road as a road access by the local public and there are 12 residential houses, a clinic, an Akshaya centre, a grocery shop and a school managed by the petitioner situated on either side of the above puramboke property which is being used as road access by the local people and that is the only access to the local

¶115

:18:

¶116

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶117

people to the outside world. A perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that a direction was issued to the Secretary to seek the assistance of the Village Officer, Rameswaram to fix the boundaries for the puramboke land so as to undertake the removal of the unauthorised construction in the property comprised in Sy. No.862/4 of Rameswaram Village. Since the only direction is to remove the unauthorized construction in the said property which is admittedly lying as a pathway and in the ownership of the 5th respondent corporation, and used by the public including the petitioners, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned in this writ petition. The 3rd respondent while issuing Ext P8 order has specifically taken note of the existence of the School and that the students are also using the pathway in question and also the safety of the students if vehicular traffic is permitted through the said pathway and issued directions to the 5th respondent to take necessary steps in consultation with the police authorities to make necessary restrictions if any required to safeguard the safety of the school students. It is ordered that the said aspect should be duly considered by the 5th respondent with the help of the police authorities and appropriate action shall

¶118

:19:

¶119

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶120

be taken so as to ensure the safety of the students using the pathway in question.

¶121

In view of the same, I find no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.

¶122

Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶123

sm/

¶124

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶125

:20:

¶126

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2841/2023

¶127

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶128

Exhibit P-1	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER DATED NIL WITH LEGIBLE COPY
Exhibit P-2	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF BTR DATED 27.11.2021
Exhibit P-3	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TAHSILDAR DATED NIL
Exhibit P- 4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THAHSILDAR DATED 10.03.2020
Exhibit P-5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.5601/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.12.2020
Exhibit P-6	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN APPEAL NO.5601/2020 DATED 30.01.2021
Exhibit P-7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.2019
Exhibit P-8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COLLECTOR DATED 30.06.2022
Exhibit P-9	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 02.12.2016
Exhibit P-10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 15.11.2022
Exhibit P-11	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN REVIEW PETITION 1054/2022 DATED 16.11.2022
Exhibit P-12	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DATED 06.12.2022
Exhibit P-13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.

¶129

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶130

:21:

¶131

39573 OF 2022 DATED 07.12.2022

¶132

Exhibit P-14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED16.01.2023

¶133

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶134

Exhibit	R7(a) The true copy 22/1/2020 in files of this	of W.P. Hon	the (C) our	judgment dated No.27351/2019 on the able Court
Exhibit	R7(b) The true copy 10/3/2020 of	of the	the fou	order dated rth respondent
Exhibit	R7(c) The true copy 9/11/2020 in files of this	of W.P. Hon	the (C) our	judgment dated No.18467/2020 on the able Court
Exhibit	R7(d) The true copy 20/10/2021 in files of this	of W.P Hon	the .(C our	judgment dated )No.22321/2021 on the able Court
Exhibit	R7(e) The true copy 17/3/2022 in of this Honou	of R.P. rabl	the No. e C	judgment dated 258/2022 on the files ourt
Exhibit	R7(f) The true copy 30/6/2022 pas	of sed	the by	order dated the third respondent
Exhibit	R7(g) The true copy 16/11/2022 in (C)No. 18467/ Honourable Co	of R.P 2020 urt	the .No on	order dated .1054/2022 in W.P. the files of this
Exhibit	R7(h) The true copy 15/11/2022 pa respondent	of ssed	the by	order dated the second
Exhibit	R7(i) The true copy 7/12/2022 in files of this	of W.P. Hon	the (C) our	judgment dated No.39573/2022 on the able Court
Exhibit	R7(j) The true copy 23/11/2022 in	of Con	the t.	order dated of Court Case

¶135

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶136

:22:

¶137

		Â©No.758/2020 on Honourable Court	the files of this
Exhibit	R7(k)	The representati submitted by the Kochi Municipal	on dated 27/10/2022 local people before the Corporation
Exhibit	R7(l)	The true photogr	aph
Exhibit	R7(m)	The true photogr	aphs
PETITIO	NER EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit	P-15	TRUE COPY OF THE 2018 DATED 25.10	PLAINT IN O.S.350 OF .2018
Exhibit	P-16	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE DEFENDANT 22.06.2021	WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.S.350 OF 2018 DATED
Exhibit	P-17	TRUE COPY OF THE DISPUTED PATHWAY	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE DATED NIL
Exhibit	P-18	TRUE COPY OF THE DISPUTED PATHWAY	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE DATED NIL
Exhibit	P-19	TRUE COPY OF THE 27.11.1980	FMB SKETCH DATED
Exhibit	P-20	TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICER DATED 10	REPORT OF THE VILLAGE .06.2022
Exhibit	P-21	TYPED COPY OF TH COLLECTOR DATED	E ORDER OF THE SUB 30.06.2022

¶138

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶139

:23:

¶140

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8042/2023

¶141

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶142

Exhibit-P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF RAMESWARAM VILLAGE IN KOCHI TALUK
Exhibit-P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF KOCHI TALUK IN RAMESWARAM VILLAGE
Exhibit-P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE 'JAMABANDY' ON THE RECORD OF RAMESWARAM VILLAGE
Exhibit-P5	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 5-1-2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE
Exhibit-P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATED 31-10-2019
Exhibit-P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ENTRANCE OF THE PATHWAY LEADING TO SREE VENKITACHALAPATHI TEMPLE
Exhibit-P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE POSITION OF THE ARCH SITUATED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PATHWAY LEADING TO THE TEMPLE
Exhibit-P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS NO. L4-10559/19 DATED 10-03-2020
Exhibit-P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 5601/2020/F DATED 30-06-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH

¶143

W.P.(C) Nos.2841 & 8042 of 2023

¶144

:24:

¶145

RESPONDENT

¶146

Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS ORDER NO. L8-9960/2022 DATED 15-11-2022 Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LR/14670/2022LR(K4) DATED 16-01-2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

Sivakumar Lekshmanan v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar Lekshmanan v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subair Shoukathali Vs the District Collector

C.K.Thomas Vs National Highway Authority of India

Mariyambi Vs State of Kerala

Sree Venkitachalapathy Devaswom Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Basil, Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee

Wimrock Granite Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala