Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/27TH AGRAHAYANA, CCC.No.1189 OF 2000(S) SUO MOTU RESPONDENTS/(*APPELLANTS IN WA 2634/1998): (*THE SUB HEADING UNDER WHICH RESPONDENTS ARE SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE IS CORRECTED AS 'RESPONDENTS' INSTEAD OF 'RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS IN W.A.2634/1998' VIDE ORDER DATED 27.9.2011 IN IA 178/2009 IN CCC 1189/2000.)
1 M.MOHANKUMAR CHIEF SECRETARY(RETD), NOW RESIDING AT TC 4/114, SUMANGALA, NEAR CHESHIRE HOME, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM 2 USHA TITUS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, NOW WORKING AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD 3 V.HARIDASAN TAHSILDAR (RETD.), TALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT SAI KRISHNA, KANNAMKARA POST, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE -:2:- 4 K. NATARAJAN SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(PENAL), BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE, NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MARINE ENFORCEMENT, TRIVANDRUM ADDL. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF R5 KOZHIKODE-- IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28- 01-2019 IN CCC 1189/2000
R1-2, R4 ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of December 2019
Shaffique, J.
The above contempt case came to be suo motu registered
by this Court when it was noticed that there has been disobedience in implementing the directions issued by this Court in OP No.19877/1996. The issue came to light only when a Division Bench of this Court was considering WA No.2634/1998 arising from OP No.13326/1996. OP No.13326/1996 was filed by Dr.Babu Oommen Thomas seeking for a direction that the excess land taken over by the State from Malabar Produce and Rubber Company Ltd., and reserved for public purpose had been encroached upon by various persons, and alleging that effective
steps were not taken for evicting such encroachers. After considering the earlier directions issued by this Court by
judgment dated 18/3/1997, further direction was issued to the
Government to take effective steps to remove the encroachers -:4:- and to allot the land for public purpose within a period of six months. In WA No. 2634/1998, the Division Bench observed that
the aforesaid Dr.Babu Oommen Thomas had filed OP No.4023/1996 for a direction to the State of Kerala and its officers to hand over the excess land to the Ministry of Home Affairs and also to evict the persons who had trespassed into the said land unauthorisedly. By an order dated 1/04/1996, an interim direction was issued to remove the unauthorised encroachers from the land which was to be protected by the Land Board and the State in terms of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
2. In fact, the issue involved is with reference to an
extent of 185.55 Acres of land which was found to be excess land to be surrendered by Malabar Produce and Rubber Company Ltd. as per an order passed by the Land Board on 16/9/1976. Government decided to transfer 96.5 Acres of land from the land surrendered by the Company to the Central Reserve Police Force for relocating their Recruitment Training Centre. But, no such transfer was effected. In the meantime, the land was encroached
-:5:- by several persons. It is on record that the encroachers had come into possession of those lands subsequent to 5/6/1995. Finally, the Division Bench held as under:-
“As can be seen from this case, there has been repeated directions by this court to the State and its officers to protect the land from encroachers and to take back lands from the encroachers and inspite of it, no attempt has been made by the appellants to comply with these directions. A Government which is not able to protect public property, cannot be said to justify its appellation. The authorities are actually trustees of the lands that have come to vest in the Government and in addition to their statutory duty to protect the land, they have also an obligation to protect the lands, based on the doctrine of public trust. A District Collector who takes the stand that he or she cannot perform his or her duty to protect the property or cannot evict the encroachers who had illegally got into the lands, does not deserve to be called a District Collector or deemed a worthy member of the Indian Administrative Service. He cannot be held to be worthy of the trust reposed on him. Our experience has shown that undue preference is being given in this State to illegal trespassers into Government land and they are always preferred to law abiding citizen who seeks to go -:6:- by the procedure established by law for getting an assignment of some portion of land for his own benefit. To give preference to such unauthorised occupiers or rank trespassers at the cost of the law abiding citizen, is clearly impermissible under the Constitution. Time and again the State and the authorities under it have failed to take necessary action to protect public property from the depredations of unscrupulous elements unauthorisedly encroaching into them and this express or tacit encouragement has resulted in substantial loss to the State both in terms of cultivable land, in terms of forests and valuable forest wealth.”
3. The judgment was delivered on 22/11/2000 and on the same day, the contempt proceedings were initiated. In an affidavit filed by the then Chief Secretary to Government, on
disobedience or laches on the part of the respondents in not complying with the directions and it was due to the supervening impossibility that occured by the subsequent orders of the Division Bench of this Court that the orders could not be complied with. It was inter alia contended that as against judgment in OP No.1703/1996, WA No. 476/1997 came to be filed and a stay of operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was
-:7:-
granted. In WA No.1986/97 filed by the Government against an interim order in CMP No.32344/97 in OP No.18111/97, the Division Bench directed the matter to be considered by the appropriate Bench for expeditious disposal and until such time, the interim order dated 10/11/1997 was directed to be continued. It is therefore the contention that in view of the orders of stay, no steps could be taken for implementing the directions and the Secretary to Government unconditionally apologized for the inconvenience caused to the Court.
4. Challenging the judgment in WA No. 2634/98, State of
Kerala and its officers preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. However, the same came to be withdrawn on 9/2/2001. This Court while considering the contempt directed charge to be framed as per order dated 30/11/2001. In the meantime, the encroachers filed OP No.3366/2002 before this Court. The Government also issued a notification dated 26/7/2006 promulgating an Ordinance by which the eviction of persons in occupation of the scheduled land was stayed for a period of one year. -:8:-
5. This Court by a further order dated 27/6/2006, after considering the arguments, held at paragraph 7 as under:-
“7. All proceedings as have been mentioned above have attained finality and yet the Government would endeavour to show us that the encroachers have some right which needs investigatlon. Prima facie, it appears to this Court that the stand taken by the Government as reflected from the affidavit of the Chief Secretary is unjustified. We are of the view that there is absolutely no obscurity or ambiguity in the earlier decisions. In none of the judgments there is any observation of an existing right or even a semblance of right vested with the trespassers who have unauthorisedly occupying the land. Be that as it may, even if it Is assumed that there is some obscurity in the matter we clarify that none of the trespassers have any right, title or interest. In so far as the stand of the Government now reflected in the affidavit that the trespassers have some right under Section 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is concerned, the same is patently incorrect in view of the earlier decisions of this Court and in particular the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in O.P.No.3366 of 2002, where the claim made by them based upon Section 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was specifically rejected. The Court at this stage still keeping in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case would not further proceed with the matter and would yet give another chance to the Government to take steps to comply with the directions given way back -:9:- in the year 1997. It may even now take steps to comply with the directions which have attained finality. List again on 31.7.2006”
6. In the meantime, challenging an order passed by the
Division Bench in WP(C) No. 27272/06, State of Kerala and its authorities had approached the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 462/2010. By the impugned judgment, High Court had set aside S.2 of the Kerala Temporary Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act, 2007 by which the eviction ordered by the High Court in the earlier proceedings was postponed for a period of two years. Apex Court observed that since the temporary provision has worked out itself, there is no necessity to decide the said question. However, it was observed as under:
“We see no reason to consider the question of encroachment in the instant appeal. Nor we deem it appropriate to consider whether any allotments made during the pendency of this appeal are valid or not. The appellants are free to pursue their remedy as may be advised. Further, contempt proceedings, if any, pending before the Kerala High Court, may proceed. With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
7. Since the Civil Appeal was disposed of, the matter was -:10:-
again listed for hearing and on 7/11/2018, this Court permitted the Government Pleader to get necessary instructions on the matter on account of the long lapse of time and permission was granted to file an affidavit. Accordingly, a statement has been filed by District Collector as directed by this Court on 11/3/2019.
8. In the said affidavit, it is stated that large number of
landless people trespassed into the excess land for constructing huts. On 5/6/1995, all the encroachers were removed from the land by using police force and a police picket was put up to safeguard the land as well.
9. It is further stated that during the process of eviction it
was found that around 800 families are staying in the site in a permanent or semi permanent building. Merit of the persons who had encroached in Government land was considered. The District Administration conducted enquiry regarding the eligibility of such persons. Enquiry revealed that the attempt to evict these families will create highly volatile situation in the area and it may go beyond the control of District Administration. It is to avoid unpleasant situation and to examine the claims and grievance of
-:11:- the settlers, the Government brought the Kerala Temporary Stay of Eviction Proceedings Bill, 2006. It was thereafter made into an enactment in 2007 and had come into force on 26/7/2006. Pursuant to the enactment, District Administration conducted
verification of the application submitted by the landless encroachers and published notification in Form No.16 u/s 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. More than 2000 applications were received for getting assignment of the land. Government further directed the District Collector to consider the applications filed by such persons including those in occupation of the land. It was found that there are 885 occupants in the surplus land. Most of them left the land for various reasons as they themselves knew that they would not come under the category of persons eligible for assignment under the Kerala Land Assignment Act. It is further submitted that most of the encroachers left the land as most of them did not obtain ration card, electricity connection etc. However, 441 occupants continue to reside in the surplus land. Again the District Administration conducted an enquiry to find out their eligibility for assignment in terms with the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It was found that 441 occupants have no other
-:12:-
land and they were eligible for assignment. Out of the 441 occupants, 228 belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Category. They were occupying the land since 1996 at the time when the survey was being done. That apart, 80 applicants had already constructed permanent structures and made valuable improvements in the land. Thereafter, proceedings were issued by the District Collector on 14/7/2009 to serve Form No.18 to the assignees and to submit deed of assignment in triplicate after collecting the purchase price as per rules. Annexure R3(b) is the said order. At that time, Sri.Babu Oommen Thomas filed WP(C) No. 24984/2009 and sought for an interim order staying implementation of Annexure R3(b). Interim order was granted on
execution of deed of assignment. The said order was further clarified on 12/10/2009 confining to the actual issue of pattas and permitting other proceedings to continue. By an order dated offer of assignment in Form No.18. Sri.Babu Oommen Thomas filed RP No.289/2010 to review the said order dated 9/2/2010, which came to be dismissed on 24/5/2010. During the aforesaid -:13:- period, Special Leave Petition No.27849/2008 was pending, which was later converted to Civil Appeal Mo.462/2010. Annexure R3(g) is an order passed by the Apex Court on 13/9/2017, which reads as under:- “I.A.Nos 10- application for striking out pleadings and
I.A.No.11 - application for vacating and recalling order
dated 15.1.2010 are dismissed. Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants seeks time to file an affidavit to point out the action that has been taken in respect of the remaining 214 plots of land, out of which 71 said to have been assigned.”
10. Finally, the Apex Court disposed of the matter on
It is further stated that presently each person are in possession of 4 to 10 cents of land as per Form no.18. Those persons are poor agricultural labourers under S.96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The District Administration has further found that 1101 persons are eligible for assignment including the present settlers. However the District Collector had given direction to the Tahsildar to evict the encroachers under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Consequently, Tahsildar, Thamarassery prepared notice in Form
-:14:-
No.C and it was served through the Village Officer. The notice dated 23/11/2018 is produced as Annexure R3(j). It is stated that people gathered and resisted entry to their land and they refused to accept notice. The Tahsildar reported that police protection is required to serve the notice. Therefore, time was sought to take a final decision in the matter.
11. The District Collector has also filed an affidavit on
encroachers were evicted from the aforesaid land on 5/6/1995, they again encroached in the said land in and around 1996. District Collector also made similar submissions and it was stated that 771 occupants who had filed application for assignment of land were found residing in the surplus land. They did not have any other land or any other means and were eligible for assignment of land as landless agricultural workers. Out of the 771 occupants, 228 belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Further, it is stated that 1101 persons were given offer of assignment under Form No.18. Out of this, 673 persons have paid the purchase price, but patta had not been issued to them since
-:15:-
interim orders were passed in OP No.24984/2009. District Collector further states that, the Tahsildar, Thamarasserry in his report dated 22/1/2019 had stated that out of 673 persons who had paid purchase price, only 393 are residing in the said plots. In addition, 117 families are residing in the aforesaid plot who were not issued assignment in Form No.18. Altogether, there are 510 families in the aforesaid plot which includes 393 families who are found to be eligible and who had paid the purchase price. It is stated that since valid purchase certificate had not been issued, they are not entitled to continue in the said land. He also stated that when notice was attempted to be served, there was massive protest and the Tahsildar was physically prevented from even entering the area. Subsequently on 4/12/2018, again attempt was made to serve notice on the persons who are residing in the said land, but again, the said attempt was obstructed. It is submitted that it was physically impossible to serve notice under the land conservancy proceedings and notices were sent by registered post with acknowledgment to all the 510 occupants. According to the District Collector, out of the aforesaid 510 persons, 393 of them are legally entitled to get purchase certificate as they had
-:16:- been issued Form No.18. However 117 families have no documentary right in the property so far. But all of them are jointly obstructing the officials when attempts are made for eviction.
12. Yet another affidavit is filed by the District Collector on
have no absolute right, order of eviction was passed and notice was sent by registered post acknowledgment due. It is submitted that when the Tahsildar had gone to the place on 12/2/2019, there was violent protest against the revenue officials from the family members of the encroachers. Accordingly, on 13/2/2019, the revenue officials had gone with police aid. However, they were not allowed to even verify the property held by the
encroachers. According to the District Collector, the land for which the offer of assignment were already issued and purchase price received are lying together with lands, for which offers of assignment are not issued or purchase price is not received. In
order to identify the lands on the basis of aforesaid two
categories, necessary verification has to be done which is not -:17:- being permitted by around 600 obstructers which includes old people, children as well as women. The District Collector on receiving information from the Tahsildar that there had been obstruction from the local people, addressed a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue on 15/2/2019 which is produced as Annexure R2(e). He also proposed a meeting to be
held and accordingly a meeting was held on 18/2/2019 in the
chamber of the District Collector in which elected representatives of the people of the Grama Panchayat including the Panchayat President, local MLA and representatives of the people were present. It was pointed out by the representatives of the people that they were all residing in the said property and had filed applications for assignment of land under the Kerala Land Reforms Ceiling Rules. When 393 families got an offer of assignment, most of the others did not get. The District Collector assured that the said aspect will be brought to the notice of the Court as well as the Government. The Principal Secretary,
Revenue had addressed a letter to the District Collector on has to be complied with and sought for a compliance report. -:18:- Again by letter dated 25/2/2019, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar (Land Records) to evict the 117 families and to file a
report. A copy of the said letter was also addressed to the District Police Chief. Though attempt was made on 28/2/2019 to evict them, with the assistance of police and when the revenue reached the spot at 1.30 p.m, due to violent protest, the eviction process was obstructed. However 3 families were evicted from the site with the assistance of police. Annexure R2(k) series is the mahazar and location sketch. By the time there was total confusion regarding the identity of land for which there was no offer for assignment. Local persons refused to co-operate with the revenue officials and it was impossible to identify the encroached lands. There was no proper demarcation and lands were lying contiguous. In the meantime, protest against eviction mounted and it was impossible to evict further persons. Accordingly, it was decided not to continue the eviction process. Annexure R2(l) is the said report of the Sub Collector. Therefore,
according to the District Collector, all possible measures are being taken to evict the encroachers from the said area. Report of the District Police Chief (Rural), Kozhikode has been filed on -:19:- the encroachers on 5/1/2019, 13/2/2019 and 25/2/2019. It is also
stated that several crimes have been registered as per the complaint of the Village Officer. According to the Police Chief also, the eviction has become virtually difficult since the land could not be identified. Even according to him, since the property is in the border of Thamarasserry area in Wayand district, it is a volatile situation and even on 6/3/2019, there was a confrontation with Maoist Organization.
13. Yet another report is filed on 3 rd April, 2019 by the Government Pleader as per directions issued by this Court on reiterated. Paragraphs 37 and 38 read as under:-
“37. The Revenue officials had conducted meticulous enquiry regarding the eligibility of the applicants and it was found that as many as 771 occupants are eligible for Assignment. Out of these 771 occupants, 228 belongs to SC/ST. It is respectfully submitted that these people are entitled for assignment u/s 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as they are come under the category of Agricultural Labours. Subsequent verification of the remaining applications found around 330 applications were eligible for assignment -:20:- in the category of landless agricultural labourers. Hence, total 1101 persons, applied for the allotment, were found eligible for assignment of land ranging from 5 to 10 cents. These 1101 persons were selected out of the total 2700 applications. Thereafter, in tune with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Revenue authority issued offer of assignment in Form No. 18 to all 1101 persons. However, only 673 persons had paid Purchase Price and remaining persons were not turn up to make payment in accordance with Offer of Assignment. Hence, they could not claim any legal right in future with respect to the property in question. Hence, as many as 428 plots, which had allotted earlier by issuing Form No. 18, are available for assignment. Moreover, Tahsildar, Thamarassery reported that out of the 673 persons who have paid purchase price, only 393 persons are residing in the land. In addition to the above said 393 persons, 117 families are
residing in the land, who are not received any Order
of Assignment. At present, there are a total number of 510 families residing in the surplus land. This includes persons, who had been issued Offer of Assignment and paid the Purchase Price as well as the persons who are not included in the list.
38. As a matter of fact, in WP(C) No.6085/2019, the
petitioners are contended that they are landless agricultural labourers, who have been residing in the land from 1992 onwards. According to them, they were submitted application for Assignment in the year 2006. However, it is respectfully submitted that -:21:- there were complaints regarding the missing of applications from the office of the Department. Considering the aforesaid complaints, the District Administration sought Legal Opinion from the learned Advocate General, who suggested that fresh application can be called for from the eligible person. The eligibility of the petitioner in WP(C) No.6085/2019 can be considered, considering the availability of vacant plots, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, with the permission of this Hon'ble Court."
14. The District Collector had also filed a statement on
similar lines. Having regard to the aforesaid factual issues and the steps taken to evict the encroachers, it has become a highly volatile issue as the people who had encroached into the area are mostly landless people. Out of the 510 families presently occupying the area, 393 of them are landless people in possession of 5 to 10 cents of land and the Government themselves had offered to give them purchase certificate. But, purchase certificates could not be issued immediately. Still there are 117 families who are in unauthorised occupation and who have not been issued any offer by the Government.
15. The question to be considered in the present contempt -:22:- case is, whether there is any willful contempt on the part of the Government.
16. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha [(2003) 11 SCC 1], a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held at paragraph 17 as under:-
"17. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines “civil contempt” and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. “Wilful” means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the
order of the court must be of such a nature
which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance.
This has to be judged having regard to the facts
and circumstances of each case. The facts
mentioned above show that none of the -:23:- respondents to the petition can be held to be directly responsible if the Scheme which had been formulated by the Government of India on 28-6-1996 and had been approved by this Court by the order dated 8-7-1996 could not be implemented in letter and spirit as many factors have contributed to the same. The reasons given for non-inclusion of Shri Umadhar Prasad Singh in signing of the agreement appear to be quite plausible. NCFL has undoubtedly not discharged its liability of making payment of its entire liability of Rs 6 crores. However, it has come out with a case that some additional expenditure has been incurred in running the unit. It is not possible to get the complete financial picture only on the basis of the affidavits filed in the present petition. On the material on record, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the charge of having committed contempt of court on account of alleged non-compliance with the orders passed by this Court on 8-7-1996, 1-5- 1997 and 31-7-2000 has been established against any one of the respondents."
17. Having regard to the explanation offered by the
District Collector and the District Police Chief, we are of the view that several attempts had been made by the Administration to remove the encroachers and they had been continuously protesting and obstructing, and even the revenue authorities are -:24:-
unable to differentiate between the land legally held by them and the land possessed by persons who do not have any right. At any rate, it is basically the Government land and it is for the Government to take necessary steps in accordance with law. As rightly pointed out by the District Collector, if force is used to evict all these persons, there will be bloodshed and it is not the intention of the Court that the eviction should be effected by such
methods. Eviction should take place in accordance with the process known to law. In so far as the Government had already taken appropriate action in the matter, we do not think that there is any reason to keep this contempt matter pending as it does not disclose a willful contempt on the part of the respondents. However, the Government should continue to monitor the situation and should ensure that illegality is not perpetuated. If any of the persons in the property in question are eligible for getting assignment of land, proper assignment orders are to be issued in accordance with law. But at the same time it has to be ensured that ineligible persons shall be evicted from such lands. From the affidavits filed before this Court, it is seen that encroachers have constructed buildings and they had electricity
-:25:- connection, water supply etc. When buildings are constructed in unauthorizedly occupied lands, it is not known how electricity connections and water connections are provided. Every department of the Government which provides essential services should also ensure that illegalities are not perpetuated. It is the paramount duty of the Government to prevent unauthorised occupation of Government land, on whatever reason.
18. In the report dated 3rd April 2019, the learned
Government Pleader had clearly indicated that as many as 771 occupants are eligible for assignment, of which 228 belongs to SC/ST category and they are entitled for assignment u/s 96 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Out of the remaining, around 330 applications were eligible for assignment in the category of landless agricultural labourers. 1101 persons were found eligible for assignment of land ranging from 5 to 10 cents. 673 persons paid purchase price and the remaining had not turned up. It is also pointed out that as many as 428 plots which were allotted earlier by issuing Form No.18 are eligible for assignment, and as
-:26:- matters stand now, about 510 families are residing in the surplus land. Nothing prevents the Government from taking necessary action as contemplated in accordance with law as far as assignment of the Government lands are concerned. In the result, further proceedings in the aforesaid contempt petition stands dropped. Sd/- S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE Rp JUDGE -:27:- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. ANNEXURE P1 (1) TRUE COPY OF COMBINED ORDER IN SLP NO.1848-1849/2001 DATED 09/02/2001. (2) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.13326/1996(J) DATED
ANNEXURE P2 (1) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL
PETITION NO.13326/1996(J) DATED
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2634/1998 DATED
ANNEXURE P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL
PETITION NO.19877/1996(N) DATED
ANNEXURE P4 (1) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WRITAPPEAL NO.2634/1998 DATED 22/11/2000.
(2) TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED ORDER OPC 1848-1849/2001, SUPREME COURT DATED
ANNEXURE P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP
NO.14320/1995, HIGH COURT DATED
ANNEXURE P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP
NO.18111/1997 OF HIGH COURT DATED
ANNEXURE P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.179/2009 INCC NO.1189/2000 DATED 08/06/2009. -:28:- ANNEXURE P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/2010 OF SUPREME COURT DATED RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED ANNEXURE R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/04/97 IN CMP NO.11937/97 IN OP NO.19877/96. ANNEXURE R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/07/97 IN CMP NO.20223/97 IN OP NO.19877/96. ANNEXURE R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/10/97 IN CMP NO.32344/97 IN OP NO.18111/97. ANNEXURE R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/11/97 IN WA NO.476/97.
ANNEXURE R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED EXHIBIT R4A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT R5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OP 14320/1995
DATED 06/11/95. EXHIBIT R5 B TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OP 3366/2002 DATED 08/02/2006. EXHIBIT R5 C TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WA 13/1996 DATED EXHIBIT R5 D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP 19877/1996 DATED 05/03/97. EXHIBIT R5 E TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OP 13326/1996 DATED 18/03/1997. EXHIBIT R5 F TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WA 2634/1998 DATED 22/11/2000. -:29:- EXHIBIT R5 G TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OP 18111/1997 DATED 30/11/2001. EXHIBIT R5 H TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN CMP NO.29010/97 IN OP 16210/1997 DATED EXHIBIT R5 I TRUE COPY OF CASE STATUS ENQUIRY OF OP EXHIBIT R5 J TRUE COPY OF FAX TO REGISTRAR GENERAL DATED 15/12/2005. EXHIBIT R5 K TRUE COPY OF FAX TO REGISTRAR GENERAL DATED 21/12/2005. EXHIBIT R5 L TRUE COPY OF REPLY FROM REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED ANNEXURE R3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2008 IN SLP NO.27849/2008. ANNEXURE R3 B TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE NO.L1- ANNEXURE R3 C TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED ANNEXURE R3 D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2010 IN RP NO.289/2010. ANNEXURE R3 E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2009 IN SLP NO.27849/2008. ANNEXURE R3 F TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE STATE OF KERALA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/2010. ANNEXURE R3 G TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/09/2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/2010. -:30:- ANNEXURE R3 H TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/2010. ANNEXURE R3 I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/2010.
ANNEXURE R3 J TRUE COPY OF FORM C ISSUED BY THE
TAHSILDAR, THAMARASSERY DATED
ANNEXURE R2 A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHEDIN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 06/01/2019. ANNEXURE R2 B COPY OF SOME OF THE NOTICES SENT BY REGISTERED POST. ANNEXURE R2 C COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE TO THE TAHSILDAR, THAMARSSERY WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2 D THE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE
TAHSILDAR, THAMARASSERY DATED
COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE WITH ENGLISHTRANSLATION. ANNEXURE R2 E COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DATED 15/02/2019 ADDRESSED TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE. ANNEXURE R2 F COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED COLLECTOR. ANNEXURE R2 G COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SUB COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. -:31:- ANNEXURE R2 H COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/02/2019 OF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE RURAL TO RENDER POLICE ASSISTANCE WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2 I PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROTESTING PERSONS. ANNEXURE R2 J TRUE COPIES OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY ON 01/03/2019 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE R2 K TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR DATED 28/02/2019 WITH LOCATION SKETCH REGARDING THE EVICTION WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE R2 L COPY OF THE LETTER OF TAHSILDAR, LAND REFORMS DATED 01/03/2019 ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. ANNEXURE R2 M TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD DATED 28/03/1989.
ANNEXURE R2 N TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
BEARING NO. GO(RT)695/90/RD DATED
ANNEXURE R2 O TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
GO(MS) NO.408/95/RD DATED 19/08/1995. ANNEXURE R2 P TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP ANNEXURE R2 Q TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.13/1996 DATED 19/02/1996. ANNEXURE R2 R TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.7782/1995 DATED 29/11/1995. ANNEXURE R2 S TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.19328/95 DATED 02/01/1996. -:32:- ANNEXURE R2 T TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO. ANNEXURE R2 U TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.13326/96 DATED 18/03/1997. ANNEXURE R2 V TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2634/1998 DATED 22/11/2000. ANNEXURE R2 W TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.19877/96 DATED 05/03/1997. ANNEXURE R2 X TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.1703/1996 DATED 12/09/1996. ANNEXURE R2 Y TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NOS. 1905/1996 AND 476/1997 DATED 04/08/1998. ANNEXURE R2 Z TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEARING NO. LB (B06.36531/87 DATED 05/10/1996. ANNEXURE R2(AA) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. GO(MS) 224/97/RD DATED 31/03/1997. ANNEXURE R2 (AB) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.16210/97 DATED 17/10/2008. ANNEXURE R2 (AC) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NO.LB(B)6-36531/87 DATED 27/08/1997. ANNEXURE R2 (AD) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.18111/97 DATED 30/11/2001. ANNEXURE R2 (AE) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1986 AND 2006 OF 1997 DATED ANNEXURE R2 (AF) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2000 IN CC(C) NO.1189/2000. -:33:- ANNEXURE R2 (AG) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CONTEMPT CASE NO.1189/2000 DATED 13/12/2000. ANNEXURE R2 (AH) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP NO.1848- ANNEXURE R2 (AI) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CC(C) NO.1189/2000 DATED 30/01/2002. ANNEXURE R2 (AJ) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.3366/2002 DATED 08/02/2006. ANNEXURE R2 (AK) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27272/2006 DATED 17/10/2008. ANNEXURE R2 (AL) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2008 IN SLP(C) 27849/08. ANNEXURE R2 (AM) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 14/07/2009. ANNEXURE R2 (AN) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.23444/1997 IN OP NO.13111/1997 DATED ANNEXURE R2 (AO) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1619/1998 AND OP NO.13111/1997 DATED 19/08/1998. ANNEXURE R2 (AP) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. ANNEXURE R2 (AQ) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/09/2009 IN WPC NO. 24984/2009. ANNEXURE R2 (AR) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP 289/10 DATED 24/05/2010. ANNEXURE R2 (AS) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2009 IN SLP(C) NO.27848/2008. -:34:- ANNEXURE R2 (AT) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/09/2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/10. ANNEXURE R2 (AU) TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE STATE OF KERALA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/10. ANNEXURE R2 (AV) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/10. ANNEXURE R2 (AW) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.462/10 DATED 26/07/2018. ANNEXURE R2 (AX) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/02/2010 IN WPC 24984/2009. True Copy PS to Judge Rp