AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.
The important point to be decided in this case is about the scope of enquiry contemplated in Rule 12 (13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short ‘Rules 2008’). Rule 12 (13) of the Rules 2008 deals with the submission of Form-9 application and the manner in which the same is to be considered. Which are the documents that are to be produced by an applicant for considering a Form-9 application, and the manner in which a Form-9 application is to be considered by the authorised officer, are to be dealt with in detail in this case.
Petitioners in these cases filed three separate Form-9 applications in accordance with the Rules 2008. The petitioners in WP(C) No.17229/2025 are husband and wife. They filed the above writ petition challenging the order rejecting a Form-9 application for the property in which they are co-owners. WP(C) No.17327/2025 is filed by the second petitioner in WP(C) No.17229/2025, and that writ petition is filed against the dismissal of a Form-9 application submitted by her in a property owned by her. WP(C) No.17198/2025 is filed by the 1st petitioner in WP(C) No.17229/2025 against an order rejecting a Form-9 application in respect of the property in his name. All three properties owned by the petitioners are situated adjacent to each other and are in Survey No. 177 of Irinjalakuda Village, Thrissur District. For convenience, I will narrate the facts in WP(C) 17229/2025.
The petitioners in WP(C) No.17229/2025 are husband and wife, and they are the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 19 cents of land (7.68 Ares) comprised in Survey No. 177 of Irinjalakuda Village. According to the petitioners, the land is situated in a commercially important area. It is the definite case of the petitioners that the land ceased to be Nilam/Paddy land even before the year 1967. The land held and possessed by the petitioners individually also lies adjacent to this particular land. The land held and possessed by the second petitioner was bifurcated into two on account of the passage of the National Highway bypass is the submission. According to the petitioners, the land contains teak, coconut, arecanut, and mahagony trees, all of which are at least 75 years old. The land is facing the bypass road. The petitioners state that there are no paddy lands in or around the land owned by them, and that no agricultural operations have been carried out in or around the land for the last 55 years. It is also submitted that the Government of Kerala published the fair value of the land comprised in Survey No. 177 of Irinjalakuda Village, taking into account the commercial importance of the area, subsequent to the developments, as evident from Ext. P1. According to the petitioners, the value shown in Ext.P1 documents substantiates the facts that the properties have ceased to be paddy land.
It is submitted that, since this land had ceased to be Nilam long before the year 1967, the petitioners approached the 1st respondent with an application in Form-9 of the Rules 2008, for the purpose of changing the description of the land in the revenue and other records. Similar applications were filed by the petitioners for their individual properties situated adjacent to this land.
The 1st respondent considered all the applications together. Subsequently, the petitioners were informed by the office of the 1st respondent that the petitioners have to produce witnesses or other documents to support the contention that the property ceased to be Nilam / paddy land well before the year 1967 and also to produce evidence substantiating the fact that the trees and other constructions in the land had been in existence well before 1967.
Responding to the above letter, the petitioners produced Ext.P2 photographs evidencing the existence of the trees within the property and also Ext.P3 photographs evidencing the basement of the old mahagony trees which were lying in the property. It is submitted that the petitioners also produced a map obtained from Google Earth, which reveals and evidences the present state of affairs in and around the land covered by the petitioners' title deeds.
Petitioners also produced Ext.P4 affidavit sworn by M.J. Baby, aged 73 years, highlighting that the land ceased to be 'nilam' before 1967, and the trees in the land are in existence before 1967. The petitioners procured and produced an affidavit of a person named Kuttan, aged 69 years, who, according to the petitioners, was working in the properties of the petitioners and in surrounding lands, highlighting that the land ceased to be 'nilam' before 1967 and that trees within the land are not less than 60 years old. Ext.P5 is the affidavit sworn by Kuttan. The petitioners produced as many documents as they could to support that the land held by them ceased to be 'nilam' well before 1967. The documents produced by the petitioners are narrated in paragraph No.7 of WP(C) No.17229 of 2025, the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
a. The description of the land
b. Photograph evidencing the present lie and nature of the land.
c. The fair value certificate downloaded from the official site of the department of registration, state of Kerala.
d. The google map
e. The title deeds
f. Affidavit given by the witness.
g. Judgments of this honourable court
h. Data bank report, etc.
Accordingly, the petitioner has produced all the evidences to substantiate the contention that this particular land has ceased to be Nilam prior to 1967, and further that no paddy cultivation is going on in and around this particular land."
It is also submitted that on verification of the draft data bank kept and maintained with Irinjalakuda Village Office, the properties comprising in survey No.177, which were earlier paddy fields, are shown as converted land, and further a direction has been given to exclude the same from the data bank. It is the case of the petitioners that there is no attempt on the part of the 1st respondent to refer to the same while considering the petitioners' application. The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite the production of all these documents to support the petitioners' case, the 1st respondent rejected all three Form 9 applications. Ext.P6 is the rejection of the Form 9 application submitted by the petitioners in WP(C) No.17229 of 2025. The other orders are produced in the other two writ petitions separately. The petitioners challenged the above orders by filing separate writ petitions before this court. This court directed the petitioners to approach the statutory appellate authority with an appeal. Hence, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that, along with the appeal memorandum, petitioners produced an affidavit sworn by an expert Chartered Engineer, by which he has affirmed that he has issued a certificate substantiating the fact that the property ceased to be nilam well before 1967, and he can tender evidence in support of the certificate issued by him. Ext.P7 in WP(C) No.17229 of 2025 is the affidavit filed by the Chartered Engineer, P.D Limson. Ext.P8 is the affidavit of the same Chartered Engineer, P.D. Limson, which is produced in WP(C) Nos. 17327 of 2025 and 17198 of 2025, as far as the individual properties of the petitioners are concerned. Petitioners also produced the affidavit of the retired Professor of the Department of Economics, Christ College, Johny Sebastin, affirming that the property in question ceased to be a nilam well before 1967, as evident from Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.17229 of 2025. Ext.P9 is the affidavit of the same Johny Sebastin produced in the other two writ petitions. Ext.P8(a) is the certificate issued by him in WP(C) No.17229 of 2025, and Ext.P9(a) is the certificate produced in the other two writ petitions. But the grievance of the petitioners is that, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal. Petitioners produced Ext.P10 sketch evidencing the lie and nature of the three properties involved in these writ petitions. In Ext.P10 in this writ petition, it can be seen that the land of the 2nd petitioner was bifurcated into two with the introduction of the NH bypass, and the balance property happened to be situated towards the southern side of the National Highway bypass. Further south, to that portion of the property, the joint property of the petitioners is situated. The property held and possessed by the 1st petitioner lies towards the eastern boundary of the property of the 2nd petitioner.
All these properties are lying contiguously and ceased to be paddy land well before 1967, is the submission. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent was convinced and satisfied that the 1st respondent had not properly adverted to the contentions raised and not properly scrutinised the documents produced, and hence set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent with regard to the extent of 7.68 ares of land comprised in survey No.177 of Irinjalakuda Village, and remanded the matter for reconsideration. Similar orders are passed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioners individually pertaining to properties held by them. In the meantime, the 2nd petitioner again approached the office of the 2nd respondent and filed an application in the form of a review requesting to recall the order, highlighting the fact that the request made by the petitioner to advert the documents and the photographs produced were not heeded. The 2nd respondent dismissed that application, observing that the statute does not provide a review against the order dismissing the appeal. Hence, the 2nd petitioner challenged the same before this court by filing WP(C) No.43904 of 2023. As on the date when the order refusing to review the order was passed by the 2nd respondent, the appeals filed by the petitioners were also pending before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this court, by Ext.P11 judgment, set aside the order and directed the 2nd respondent to remand all the matters pending to the 1st respondent for reconsideration, taking into account and referring to all the documents and affidavits filed by the petitioners.
As directed by this Court in Ext.P11, the 2nd respondent set aside the order and remanded all the matters to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. Subsequent to the order of remand, the petitioners secured a certificate prepared by the Scientist attached to the Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Thrissur, in which the Scientist estimated and assessed the age of the trees standing in the property and reported, as evident from Ext.P12. But the 1st respondent again rejected the applications. Again, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the orders. But the appeal was rejected again. Ext.P14 is the order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners in this case and in WP (C) No.17198 of 2025, and Ext.P15 is the order rejecting the appeal in the other writ petition. Hence, these writ petitions are filed.
Heard Adv. T.N. Manoj, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Adv. K.C. Vincent, the learned Additional Advocate General.
In the impugned orders, the main ground raised by the officers for rejecting the Form-9 application is that the petitioners have not produced all the documents mentioned in sub clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12(13) of the Rules 2008. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners need to produce only one of the documents mentioned in sub clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12(13) of the Rules 2008. The counsel takes me through the documents produced along with the writ petitions and submits that the Form-9 application ought to have been allowed, as the petitioners produced the documents under sub-clauses (iv) and (v) of Rule 12(13) of the Rules 2008. The petitioners also had taken out an Advocate Commission, and the Advocate Commission submitted a detailed report. The counsel for the petitioners takes me through the Commissioner’s report and submits that it also shows that the properties were converted before 1967.
The Additional Advocate General fairly submitted that documents mentioned in more than one sub-clause of sub-rule 12(13) are not necessary for allowing a Form-9 application submitted in accordance with the Rules 2008. The Additional Advocate General also submitted that if the applicant submits documents mentioned in any of the sub clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12(13) of the Rules 2008, the authorised officer has to process the same and conduct an enquiry, and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. The Additional Advocate General takes me through the documents that are required under sub clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12(13) of the Rules 2008 and submits that a detailed enquiry is necessary by the authorised officer before deciding a Form-9 application. The Additional Advocate General further submitted that usually in these types of cases, the petitioners have to file a Form-7 application, and they have to pay a conversion fee also. Some landowners prefer the Form-9 application to avoid the conversion fee and the requirement to set apart 10% land for water conservation. Therefore, while considering the Form-9 application submitted by the landowners, strict scrutiny is necessary to determine whether they are attempting to evade the conversion fee is the submission of the Additional Advocate General. The Additional Advocate General contended that the rejection of the Form 9 application is proper and also defended the rejection of the appeal. The affidavits sworn by persons aged 73 and 69 cannot be relied upon for the simple reason that they had not attained maturity in 1967, is the submission. Furthermore, affidavits/statements of witnesses can only be accepted as supporting evidence when the applicant has produced certificates from experts with regard to the age of trees, houses, ancient kavu, structures, etc. No affidavit/statements by a witness shall be taken into account as proof of conversion before 1967, in the absence of scientific evidence or expert opinion, is the submission. Sub-clause (v) of sub-rule 12 (13) mandates a combination of evidence, ie; expert opinion coupled with a statement of a witness, is the contention raised by the Additional Advocate General. It was further argued that the certificate issued by KSCSTE-Kerala Forest Research Institute, though available during the consideration by the authorised Officer or before the Appellate Authority, they could not examine the author of the certificates. The Advocate commission was appointed by this Court, and there was no occasion for the Authorities to consider the same is the further submission. The Authorised Officers cannot mechanically rely on any certificate or affidavit, but shall ascertain the genuineness of the certificate and credentials of the witnesses by examining the author/deponent. As such, the rejection by the Authorised Officer and Appellate Authority is justifiable, it is submitted. It is true that the affidavits by persons aged 73 and 69 are not acceptable, as contended by the Additional Advocate General. The certificate/affidavit by the Chartered Engineer is not sufficient to determine the age of the trees standing on the property, as he is not an expert in that field. The affidavit by the Retired Professor, Johny Sebastian, by itself cannot be accepted as evidence under Sub-Clause (v), as there was no primary evidence showing the age of the trees, is the further submission. An Authorised Officer is expected to accept a statement of witnesses only as a material supporting some kind of primary evidence fixing the age of trees, houses, structures, etc. While considering the statements of witnesses, their credentials and their knowledge of the subject land during 1967 shall be ascertained by examining the author/deponent, the Additional Advocate General reiterated.
When these writ petitions came up for consideration on 15.06.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate General, I am of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent should conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out the genuineness of Ext.P12 in W.P.(C.) Nos. 17198/2025 & 17229/2025 and also Ext.P13 in W.P.(C.) No. 17327/2025. He should submit a report before this Court within a time frame, in the light of Rule 12 (13)(v) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
2.Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry regarding the genuineness of Ext.P12 in W.P.(C.) Nos. 17198/2025 & 17229/2025 and also Ext.P13 in W.P.(C.) No. 17327/2025 and submit a report before this Court within one month. The 2nd respondent will also verify the genuineness of the affidavits, as evident by Exts.P8, P9 and P9(a) in W.P. (C.) No. 17198/2025 by getting a statement from the persons, who sworn the affidavits. I make it clear that the 2nd respondent can conduct the enquiry through online, if he is intended to do so.
Post along with W.P.(C.) No. 38601 of 2024 on 15.07.2026.”
Now, a memo is filed by the Additional Advocate General, producing a report submitted by the District Collector, Thrissur, along with a statement recorded by him.
The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, Act 2008) was enacted with a great object. There has been an alarming shift from rice and subsistence food farming to cash crops in Kerala. Kuttanad, Palakkad, and other paddy fields in Kerala remained the granaries of the State. The area under rice cultivation has declined sharply from about 8 lakh hectares in the early 1970s to nearly 2 lakh hectares in the 2000s, mainly due to the conversion of paddy lands. Kerala imports more than 80% of its rice requirements from other States. Several social, economic, and cultural changes have led to the conversion of paddy fields. Hence, in the wider interest of society and mankind, the legislature decided that paddy lands are to be preserved. Similarly, wetlands are among the most diverse ecosystems on Earth, as they have both land and aquatic characteristics. Therefore, the new legislation was approved by the legislature to regulate the reclamation and conversion of paddy fields and wetlands in Kerala.
Before the Act 2008, the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order) was in force. The KLU Order was framed exercising the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Clause 6 of the KLU Order is extracted hereunder:
“6. Land cultivated with any food crop not to be cultivated with any other food crop.
(1)No holder of any land, which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector.
(2)No holder of any land who cultivates any land with any food crop for a continuous period of three years at any time after the commencement of this Order shall, after the said period of three years, convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector:
Provided that except in the case of lands under cardamom cultivation, no permission under sub-clause (1) or sub-clause (2), shall be necessary where the cultivation for which the land is converted or attempted to be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised is paddy cultivation or fish culture:
Provided further that the lands under cultivation of paddy should not be converted or attempted to be converted or utilised or attempted to be utilised for fish culture permanently, but only seasonally.”
Clause 6 of the KLU Order says that, no holder of any land, which has been under cultivation with any food crop for a continuous period of three years immediately before the commencement of this Order, shall convert or attempt to convert or utilise or attempt to utilise such land for the cultivation of any other food crop or for any other purpose except under and in accordance with the terms of a written permission given by the Collector. Subsequently, the Act 2008 and Rules 2008 came into force.
Exercising the powers under Section 30 of the Act, 2008, Rules, 2008 were framed. As I mentioned earlier, Rule 12 (13) deals with the filing of a Form 9 application. Rule 12 (13) of the Rules, 2008 is extracted hereunder:
“12.27 എ വകുപപ്പ് (2)----ാം ഉപവകുപപ്പ് പ്ര ക-ര-ാം വവിജ-പന-ാം ചചെയ്യചപട-ത്ത ഭൂ മവിയുചട സസ്വഭ-വ വവ്യതവിയ-ന-ാം അനുവദവിക്കുന്നതവിനുള്ള നടപടവിക്രമ-ാം .-.
(13)1967-ചലെ ജൂ ലലെ 4----ാം തതീയതവിക്കുമുമപ്പ് നവികത്തവിയതത-നവികന്നതത- ആയ ഭൂ മവിയുചട സസ്വഭ-വ വവ്യതവിയ-ന-ാം സ-ാംബനവിച്ചുള്ള അതപക്ഷ ഫ-റ-ാം 9-ൽ സമർപവിതക്കേണ്ടത-ാംപ്രസ്തു ത ഭൂ മവി 1967 ജൂ ലലെ 4----ാം തതീയതവിക്കുമുമപ്പ് നവികത്തവിയതത-നവികത്തുന്നതത- ആചണെന്നപ്പ് ചതളവിയവിക്കുന്നതവിന-യവി പ്രസ്തു തഭൂ മവിചയ സ-ാംബനവിക്കുന്ന ത-ചഴെ പറയുന്ന തരഖകൾ ചതളവിവ-യവി സസ്വതീകരവിക്കേ-വുന്നത-ണെപ്പ് . അത-യതപ്പ്:-
(i)അപ്രക-രമുള്ള ഭൂ മവി , 1967 ജൂ ലലെ 4 നപ്പ് മു മപ്പ് നവികന്നത-തയ- മറപ്പ് ക-ർഷവിതകതര ആവശവ്യങ്ങൾക്കേ-യവി ഉപതയ-ഗവിചവിട്ടുള്ളത-തയ- പ്ര സപ്പ്ത-വവിചവിട്ടുള്ള ആധ-രത്ത വിചന്റെ പകർപ്പുകൾ അചല്ലെങവിൽ ;
(ii)അപ്രക-രമുള്ള ഭൂ മവി , 1967 ജൂ ലലെ 4 നപ്പ് മു മപ്പ് നവികന്നത-തയ- മറപ്പ് ക-ർഷവിതകതര ആവശവ്യങ്ങൾക്കേ-യവി ഉപതയ-ഗവിചവിട്ടുള്ളത-തയ- പ്ര സ-വവിചവിട്ടുള്ള /തരഖചപടുത്തവിയവിട്ടുള്ളമുദ്ര പത്ര ത്ത വിൽ തയ്യ-റ-ക്കേവിയവിട്ടുള്ള നവിയമ-നുസൃത ഉടമടവികൾ (ഒറവി, ക-ണെ-ാം തടങ്ങവിയവയുതടതപ്പ് ഉൾചപചട ).
(iii)അപ്രക-രമുള്ള ഭൂ മവിയവിൽ , 1967 ജൂ ലലെ 4 നപ്പ് മു മപ്പ് നവിലെവവിലുണ്ട-യവിരുന്ന ചകടവിടത്തവിനപ്പ് തതദ്ദേശ സസ്വയ-ാംഭരണെ സ-പനത്തവിൽ ചകടവിട നവികുതവി അടചതവിചന്റെ രസതീതപ്പ് അചല്ലെങവിൽ ;
(iv)അപ്രക-രമുള്ളഭൂ മവി , 1967 ജൂ ലലെ 4 നപ്പ് മു മപ്പ് നവികന്നത-തയ- മറപ്പ് ക-ർഷവിതകതര ആവശവ്യ ങ്ങ ൾക്കേ-യവി ഉപതയ-ഗവിചവിട്ടുള്ളത-തയ- ചതളവിയവിക്കുന്ന തരത്തവിൽ ഏചതങവിലു-ാം സർക്കേ-ർ ഉതദവ്യ-ഗസതന- , സർക്കേ-ർ ഏജൻസവികതള- നൽകവിയ ലലെസൻസ-ാം മറപ്പ് തരഖകതള- ;
(v)വവിജ-പന-ാം ചചെയ്യചപട-ത്ത ഭൂ മവിയുചട സസ്വഭ-വ വവ്യതവിയ-ന-ാം സ-ാംബനവിച്ചു സമർപവിചവിട്ടുള്ള അതപക്ഷയവിൽ വവ്യക്തമ-ക്കേവിയവിട്ടുള്ള ഭൂ മവിയവിലുള്ള മരങ്ങൾ , വതീടുകൾ ,പു ര-തനമ-യ ക-വുകൾ , എടുപപ്പ് എന്നവിവയുചട പ്ര -യ-ാം , ക-ലെപഴെക്കേ-ാം എന്നവിവയുചട അടവിസ-നത്തവിലു-ാം അതവിനനുസൃതമ-യുള്ള സ-ക്ഷവി ചമ-ഴെവികതള- "
A bare perusal of Rule 12 (13) of Rules, 2008 would show that the application regarding the change of nature of land which was filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967 shall be submitted in Form 9. In Rule 12 (13) of Rules, 2008, the records that can be considered as evidence to show that the land was filled up or naturally filled up before 04.07.1967 are stated in sub-rule (i) to (v).
The first point to be decided is whether, for considering a Form – 9 application, all five types/categories of documents mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12 (13) of the Rules, 2008 are necessary or not? As I stated earlier, the learned Additional Advocate General fairly submitted that documents in more than one sub-clause are not necessary for considering a Form–9 application. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that, if documents which can be accepted as evidence as stated in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12 (13) of the Rules, 2008 are available, the authorised officer can accept the same. I think the Additional Advocate General is justified in taking such a stand. When these Writ Petitions came up for consideration earlier, the stand taken by the then Government Pleaders was that, for processing a Form – 9 application, all the documents mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12 (13) of Rules, 2008 are necessary, which was the stand taken by the authorised officer also in the impugned orders in these cases. Such a contention was taken because “or” is mentioned in between sub-clauses (i) and (ii), (iii) and (iv) and a semicolon is also used after all the sub-clauses.
The Apex Court in Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose [1952 KHC 348] observed that punctuation marks are minor elements in the construction of a statute. If there is no ambiguity while interpreting the statute literally, the punctuation marks are minor elements. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:
“57.The contention of Mr. Ghosh is that on a proper construction of the language of the clause, the whole of the Bar Councils Act and not merely those provisions in it, which relate to disabilities attaching to Advocates of other High Courts, must be deemed to be eliminated, so that the right of practising that is conferred by the section is to be exercised without the restrictions or limitations flowing from any of the provisions of the Bar Councils Act. In support of his contention that the whole of the Bar Councils Act is excluded by the opening clause, Mr. Ghosh lays great stress on a comma, which separates the Bar Councils Act and the figures and words that follow, from the expression "or in any other law" which comes immediately after that. He says further that under the ordinary rules of interpretation the adjectival phrase "regarding the conditions etc." should be taken to apply to the word or phrase immediately preceding it and not to the remoter antecedent term or expression. These arguments, though they have an air of plausibility about them, do not impress me much. Punctuation is after all a minor element in the construction of a statute, and very little attention is paid to it by English Courts. Cockburn C. J. said in Stephenson v. Taylor, (1861) 1 B. and S.101 "On the Parliament Roll there is no punctuation and we therefore are not bound by that in the printed copies." It seems, however, that in the Vellum copies printed since 1850 there are some cases of punctuation, and when they occur they can be looked upon as a sort of contemporanea expositio, see craise on Statute Law, p. 185. When a statute is carefully punctuate and there is doubt about its meaning, a weight should undoubtedly be given to the punctuation, vide Crawford on Statutory Construction, p. 343. I need not deny that punctuation may have its uses in some cases, but it cannot certainly be regarded as a controlling element and cannot be allowed to control the plain meaning of a text, (ibid).” (Underline supplied)
The semicolons and commas are punctuation marks whose purpose is to divide a sentence into different parts. The Apex Court in Premanand & Others v. B. Mohan Koikal & Others [2011 KHC 4271] observed like this:
“32.The literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be no interpretation. In other words, we should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language.
33.We may mention here that the literal rule of interpretation is not only followed by Judges and lawyers, but it is also followed by the lay man in his ordinary life. To give an illustration, if a person says 'this is a pencil', then he means that it is a pencil; and it is not that when he says that the object is a pencil, he means that it is a horse, donkey or an elephant. In other words, the literal rule of interpretation simply means that we mean what we say and we say what we mean. If we do not follow the literal rule of interpretation, social life will become impossible, and we will not understand each other. If we say that a certain object is a book, then we mean it is a book. If we say it is a book, but we mean it is a horse, table or an elephant, then we will not be able to communicate with each other. Life will become impossible. Hence, the meaning of the literal rule of interpretation is simply that we mean what we say and we say what we mean.” (Underline supplied)
The Allahabad High Court in Ramautar @ Ramavtar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others [2025 SCC OnLine All 6843] observed like this:
“37.The interpretation of the conjunction ‘or’, as enunciated in the decisions G.P. Ceramics (P) Ltd., Guru Nanak Dev University and Smt. Krishna Shri Gupta, (supra) makes it abundantly clear that ‘or’ is to be read in its ordinary disjunctive sense, except where the context unambiguously warrants a conjunctive construction. No such exception arises in the present context. Accordingly, the conditions under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (8) must be treated as alternative, not cumulative. ”
Therefore, it is well settled that, if there is no ambiguity while interpreting the statute literally, the punctuation marks are minor elements, and they need not be considered for interpreting the statute. But punctuation may have its uses in some cases, but it cannot certainly be regarded as a controlling element. Keeping the above principles in mind, this Court perused Rule 12(13) of the Rules, 2008. I am in agreement with the submissions of the Additional Advocate General. If documents mentioned in only one of the sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12 (13) of Rules, 2008 alone are produced as evidence by an applicant along with a Form – 9 application, the Form – 9 application cannot be rejected solely for that reason, if those documents are admissible as evidence. The documents mentioned in any one of the sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 12 (13) of the Rules, 2008, are sufficient, if it is acceptable evidence as per the Rules 2008, to process a Form 9 application.
The petitioner in this case relied on sub-clauses (iv) and (v) of Rule 12 (13) of the Rules, 2008. Rule (iv) says about the documents, like license or such documents, if any, issued by any Government officer or Government agency, sufficient to prove that such land has been either naturally filled up or used for purposes other than agriculture prior to 04.07.1967. Therefore, if any license or other documents, even if it is issued subsequent to the cut-off date of 04.07.1967, but, only if such license or other document was issued based on an admitted and proven situation that the land in dispute has been naturally filled up or used for purposes other than agriculture prior to 04.07.1967, that can be accepted as evidence to process a Form – 9 application. Therefore, the date of the license or other documents mentioned in sub-clause (iv) of Rule 12 (13) of the Rules, 2008 is not of much importance, but whether that document was issued on an admitted and proven status that the property is filled up or used for purposes other than agriculture prior to 04.07.1967, is the point to be considered. But in the present case, no such documents are produced.
As far as sub-clause (v) of Rule 12 (13) of Rules, 2008 is concerned, it states that an evidence based on the age and oldness of the standing trees, houses, ancient Kavu (holy grove), structures etc., which are referred to in the application made for change of nature of un-notified land together with the statement of the witness in support of that fact is evidence. Therefore, as far as sub-clause (v) of Rule 12 (13) is concerned, if any documents or certificates or any material is produced based on the age and oldness of standing trees, houses, ancient Kavu (holy groves), structures etc. which are referred to in the application, and if those documents/certificates/materials are proved through examination and and supported by statement of witness, the same can be accepted as an evidence.
In this case, the petitioners produced Ext.P12 in WP(C) No. 17198/2025 and WP(C) No. 17229/2025 and Ext.P13 in WP(C) No. 17327/2025. This Court perused these documents. This is a certificate issued by KSCSTE - Kerala Forest Research Institute regarding the age estimation of trees on the petitioners' property. The age of some of the coconut trees is noted as 65 to 75 years in it (See serial numbers 8 to 9 in Ext P12 produced in WP (C) No. 17198 of 2025). When these writ petitions came up for consideration before this Court on 15.06.2026, this Court passed a common order, which is extracted in paragraph 14 of this judgment. Based on the same, the Additional Advocate General files a memo along with the enquiry report. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the letter issued by the District Collector, Thrissur, to the Advocate General, which is produced along with the memo.
“In compliance with the above direction, a preliminary hearing was conducted on 09.07.2026 after issuing notices to all the concerned parties and officials. During the course of the enquiry, it was found necessary to verify the genuineness of the KFRI reports and other documents relied upon by the petitioners by obtaining confirmation from the competent authorities. During the course of the enquiry, it was ascertained that Prof. Johny Sebastian, Retired Professor, Christ College, Irinjalakuda, who had sworn the affidavit dated 14.12.2022 relied upon by the petitioners, had expired. Consequently, his statement could not be recorded in compliance with the directions contained in the interim order of the Hon'ble Court.
Sri. P.D. Limson, 77 years old, Chartered Engineer, residing at Kombara Desom, Manavalassery Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, who had furnished supporting materials in favour of the petitioners, appeared before the enquiry authority on 24.07.2026, and his statement was duly recorded. During the enquiry, Sri. P.D. Limson stated that, although his affidavit dated 14.12.2022 referred to the existence of 70-year-old coconut and mahogany trees in the subject property, he was not aware of the exact age of those trees. He stated that he had personally seen coconut trees standing on the property during his school days. He further stated that he had not studied at the Government Engineering College, Thrissur, that he is a Mechanical Engineer by profession, and that he was not scientifically competent to determine the age of the trees or to certify their age through any scientific methodology.
Necessary steps were also taken to obtain confirmation from the competent authority of the Kerala Forest Research Institute regarding the genuineness of the scientific report relied upon by the petitioners. In response, KFRI, vide communication dated 24.07.2026, informed this office that, based on the application dated 13.05.2024 submitted by Sri. Alphy Joseph and Smt. Evelin Louis seeking permission for conversion of land comprised in Survey No.177 of Irinjalakuda Village, the Institute had received a request for assessment and certification of the age of the trees standing on the said property.
KFRI further informed that Dr. C.K. Adarsh, Scientist, Silviculture Division, had submitted a proposal seeking allotment of a Technical Project Number for conducting the technical assessment relating to the determination of the age of the trees. Accordingly, Technical Project No. Tech 52/2024 was allotted by the Institute. Thereafter, Dr. C.K. Adarsh conducted the technical assessment in his professional capacity and prepared the report, which was forwarded to the applicants by KFRI vide Letter No. DR24/KSCSTE-KFRI/2024-2.
This office also independently contacted Dr. C.K. Adarsh, who confirmed that the report in question had been prepared and submitted by him in his official capacity.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that, in compliance with the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court, the preliminary enquiry regarding the genuineness of the documents and scientific reports relied upon by the petitioners has been completed. However, the evidentiary value of the said report and the ultimate legal determination as to whether the subject property had been converted prior to 04.07.1967 are matters to be adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court on the basis of the entire records, evidence and other materials available on record. This report is, therefore, respectfully submitted in compliance with the directions contained in the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court.”
This Court perused the report of KFRI also. I am of the considered opinion that, in the light of the enquiry report and the letter bearing Number KFRI/1145/2026/E4 dated 24.07.2026 issued by the Registrar of Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, the Form-9 application is to be allowed. It is true that the Authorised Officer and the Appellate Authority had no occasion to examine the officer who issued the certificates of the Kerala State Forest Research Institute or the report prepared by the Advocate Commission. Though the affidavits by persons aged 73 and 69 and the report by the Chartered Engineers are not acceptable, the affidavit by the Retired Professor can be taken as supporting evidence in view of the primary evidence, including the certificates by Forest Research Institute and the report of the Advocate Commission.
At this stage, the Additional Advocate General submitted that, simply because the age of the trees is mentioned, it cannot be treated as evidence to show that the entire property was converted before 04.07.1967. At this stage, this Court perused the Advocate Commissioner's report. It would be better to extract the details ascertained by the Advocate Commissioner, as per the petitioners' work memo.
“MATTERS TO BE ASCERTAINED AS PER THE WORK MEMO
OF THE APPELLANT
1.Please do examine and report, with reference to Exhibits P2, P2 (a) and Exhibit P3 Photographs produced along with the ‘writ Petition, the Number of Coconut Trees, Mahagoni Trees and other Trees available in the property, covered By Exhibit P10 Sketch.
Ans:- The property is densely covered with trees of various age groups. The property contains 34 coconut trees, 12 teak trees, 2 mango trees, 5 mahogany trees, and 75 areca nut trees. Additionally, there are 5 coconut trees without heads.
2.Please do report, with reference to P10 sketch/plan, the approximate width of Bye-pass road separating the properties into two.
Ans:- The width of the Bye Pass road was measured as 16m using a tape
3.Please do report the position of the trees standing in the property and also report as to whether or not, before the carving out of the Bypass road, Big Trees, including Coconut Trees were available and was standing with in the property, and is not on account of the due formation of the road after the destruction of the Big Trees, that the Trees presently available happened to be secluded towards the boundary of the Property and also in and around abutting the newly formed road.
Ans:- On the southern side of the property (adjacent to byepass road), along the boundary wall, there are 4 teak trees, 1 mango tree, and 1 very tall coconut tree. There is also a stump which is having a diameter of around 14inch. .
4.Do Note the approximate age of the Trees which all fell down on account of old and over age. Do Note the position of such over aged deteriorated old trees, Count and report their numbers.
Ans:- Four coconut trees have fallen due to old age. Their exact age cannot be determined, and the trunks show signs of decay.
5.Do Note and report with reference to Ext. P3 Photograph, the position and nature of the trees and also its approximate age may be reported.
Ans:- Out of the four trees mentioned in Exhibit P3, only one stands near the northern boundary wall. The other three are located toward the centre, about 7 to 8m from the eastern boundary. There are no materials to determine their age.
6.Do take note of and count, By inspecting the Land, the number of Mahagoni Trees, which were cut and removed evidenced by the basement, and also report the number of the remaining stumps, its top diameter and circumference also report the different age of the trees which were cut and removed, with reference to Exhibit P3 Photograph.
7.Report the age of the Big trees which were cut off with reference to its diameter and its circumference, of the basement.
Ans:- In response to questions 6 and 7.
A total of 29 cut trees (stumps) were found on the property, including the 4 mentioned in question 5. They consist of mahogany and teak. One stump of mahogany was located near the northern boundary has a circumference of 58 inches and a diameter of 19 inches. Another stump of large tree was located near the northwestern boundary measures 51 inches in circumference and 17 inches in diameter.
The 17 cut trees (stumps) were spread primarily toward the northern boundary wall, these were marked and numbered with chalk for calculation. Most were cut at ground level, making it difficult to measure their circumference. This was further complicated by mahogany roots and the irregular, non-circular shape of the stumps, which affected the accuracy of diameter measurements. The average diameter of the cut mahogany trees is between 16 and 21 inches. Photographs showing the remains of the cut trees are attached as Exhibit C4.
8.Verify and report As to whether it was only due to the formation of the bypass road that the trees including Coconut Trees happened to be situated by the sides of the property.
Ans:- As mentioned in the answer to question 3, there are 4 teak, 2 coconut, and 1 mango tree situated adjacent to the boundary wall. The height of the coconut tree exceeds that of a three-story building, and its trunk shows symptoms of decaying.
9.Report as to whether or not new trees are planted in the property and those in place of the old lost trees.
Ans:- Other than the trees mentioned in the answer to question 1, there are many small arecanut trees, banana plants, and very small teak trees on the property. These young trees are of various age groups and are spread widely across the site.
10.Do report as to whether, in and around the vicinity of the land covered by the Petitioner, there is symptoms of paddy cultivation, going on and had been in existence, and also report as to whether there is any possibility of the Paddy cultivation to go on in and around the land of the petitioner in the near future.
Ans:- There are no signs of paddy cultivation on the property, nor are there any cultivation fields in the surrounding area. Since the property contains approximately 133 trees of various age groups, I think there is no chance of cultivating paddy.
11.Do report about the present lie and nature of the land Within the vicinity of the land of the petitioner and also report about the existence of the Bye pass road, the Terrace Buildings in and around, the Commercial Institutions, Hotels, Chembakasserry Cinemas, Furniture Marts etc.
Ans:- Very near to the property, a two-storied commercial building where a hotel, Signature Mini Mart, and an Aquarium Pet shop is functioning. Within 500 meters of the property, there is also a Cinema Theatre by name Chembakassery, a restaurant Qasr Mandi, and a Furniture Mart.
12.Report as to whether in the present changed scenario of the land of the petitioner and considering the change that has taken place to the surroundings of the land, Is not the Fair Value fixed With reference to Ext. P1 is justifiable and correct.
Ans:- The property is situated along the bypass road connecting Kattor to State Highway 22. The surrounding area consists of residential and commercial buildings. No paddy cultivation is visible anywhere in the vicinity.
13.Examine and report whether the Bye pass abutting the land is one of the most important and busy trafficable roads leading to Irinjalakuda Town.
Ans:- The bypass road, which is 16 meters wide, is a high-traffic road connecting the Kattor side to Irinjalakuda Town on State Highway 22.
14.Do Examine and report as to whether the property is well bounded on all sides with Pucca compound Walls and Gates.
Ans:- On the southern side, there is a wall and a gate providing entrance to the petitioner's property. The eastern and northern sides are bounded by concrete walls, while the western boundary is marked with boundary stones. The property on the western side belongs to the petitioner's wife, who is the petitioner in the connected case, W.P. (C) 17327/2025.
15.Do examine and report whether a cut off portion of the land belonging singularly to Evilin Louis on the Southern side of the Bye-pass road (around 6 cent) is situated in between this land and the Bye pass road, with regard to the land held and possessed by the petitioner Eviline Alphy in Writ petition no 17327/2025.
Ans:- Evelyn Louis’s property is on the western side of the petitioner’s property and is divided by boundary stones. A small portion of the property owned by Smt Louis lies on the opposite side of the bypass road, which it is marked by a wall and boundary stones.
16.Do report as to in the light of the present scenario in and around the land taking in to account Exhibit P12 report, the standing trees, the basement of the that were cut off, the possibility of the land being converted and ceased to be Paddy land much before May 1967.
Ans:- Throughout the property, there are 29 stumps of large trees. Some of these stumps are old and decaying, while others appear to have been cut more recently. Similarly, there were 9 very tall coconut trees that exceed the height of a three-story building. Petitioner pointed that those are mentioned in SL 8,9 and 10 in exhibit P12 for the same. Additionally, four decaying coconut tree trunks were found, indicating that trees were located through out the property spread across the property.
17.Please to verify report and answer such other additional Points/Questions that may also be raised by the petitioner at the time of Inspection.
Ans:- An additional question was raised to report the trees found on the neighboring plots to the east and north. On the Northern side, there are large number of trees, including nig teak trees, and no signs of any cultivation were found.”
Considering the above Advocate Commissioner's report and also the certificates and report of the District Collector after the enquiry, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners proved that the property was converted before 04.07.1967.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders in these cases are to be set aside, and consequential orders in the light of the discussion in this judgment are to be passed by the authorised officer, within a time frame.
Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions :
WP(C) No. 17229/2025 is disposed of, setting aside Ext.P14 and the 1st respondent is directed to pass a consequential order in Form-9 application No.B2/2187/2018, in the light of the finding in paragraph 31 of this judgment, taking into account the mandate of the proviso to sub section (3) of 27A of Act of 2008 without insisting for payment of any amount as fee, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
WP(C) 17198/2025 is disposed of, setting aside Ext.P14 and the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the Form-9 application No.B2/2184/2018, in the light of the finding in paragraph 31 of this judgment, taking into account the mandate of the proviso to sub section (3) of 27A of Act of 2008 without insisting for payment of any amount as fee, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
WP(C) No. 17327/2025 is disposed of, setting aside Ext.P15 and the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the Form-9 application No.B2/2186/2018, in the light of the finding in paragraph 31 of this judgment, taking into account the mandate of the proviso to sub section (3) of 27A of Act of 2008 without insisting for payment of any amount as fee, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 17198 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE LAND PUBLISHED, DATED 25/3/2023, IN THE KERALA GAZETTE STATE OF KERALA.
Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TREES STANDING IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE
LAND ALONG WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE
TREES, STANDING IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF THE BASEMENT OF TREES IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER WHICH WERE CUT AND REMOVED.
Exhibit .P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT (UNDATED ) SWORN BY ADV M.J BABY PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ( UNDATED ) SWORN BY KUTTAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P6 .TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK DOWN LOADED FROM THE SITE, PUBLISHED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE IRINJALAKUDA SHOWING THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE NATURE OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/9/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SERVED ON THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/12/2022 SWORN BY CHARTERED ENGINEER P.D. LIMSON PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P8(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/12/2022 +ISSUED BY CHARTERED ENGINEER P.D. LIMSON PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/12/2022 SWORN BY PROF JOHNY SEBASTIAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.AND TYPED COPY.
Exhibit.P9(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/12/2022 ISSUED BY PROF JOHNY SEBASTIAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 21/1/2021 EVIDENCING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES SOUGHT TO BE RE - CLAIMED.
Exhibit.P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/2/2024 IN W P ( C) 43904/2023 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
Exhibit.P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCIENTIFIC REPORT DATED 20/6/2024, PREPARED BY THE SCIENTIST ATTACHED TO THE KERALA STATE FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE PEECHI.
Exhibit.P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2024, OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM 9 APPLICATION.
Exhibit.P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2025, IN APPEAL, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit C4 Photographs showing the remains of the cut trees
Exhibit C1 True copy of Work memo preferred by the petitioner dated 21-01-2026
Exhibit C2 True copy of the notice containing with the endorsement made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the office of Advocate General
Exhibit C3 True copy of the location sketch
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25/6/26, FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 17229 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE LAND PUBLISHED, DATED 25/3/2023, IN THE KERALA GAZETTE STATE OF KERALA.
Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TREES STANDING IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TREES STANDING IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF THE BASEMENT OF TREES IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER WHICH WERE CUT AND REMOVED.
Exhibit.P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT (UNDATED ) SWORN BY ADV M.J BABY PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT (UNDATED ) SWORN BYC.S. KUTTAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/9/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SERVED ON THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/12/2022 SWORN BY CHARTERED ENGINEER P.D. LIMSON PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P7(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/12/2022 +ISSUED BY CHARTERED ENGINEER P.D. LIMSON PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/12/2022 SWORN BY PROF JOHNY SEBASTIAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P8(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/12/2022 +ISSUED BY PROF JOHNY SEBASTIAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/10/2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE STATUTORY APPEAL. AND TYPED COPY COPY.
Exhibit.P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 21/1/2021 EVIDENCING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES SOUGHT TO BE RE - CLAIMED.
Exhibit.P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/2/2024 IN W P ( C) 43904/2023 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
Exhibit.P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCIENTIFIC REPORT DATED 20/6/2024, PREPARED BY THE SCIENTIST ATTACHED TO THE KERALA STATE FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE PEECHI.
Exhibit.P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2024, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT .
Exhibit.P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/3/2025, IN APPEAL, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit C1 True copy of Work memo preferred by the petitioner dated 21-01-2026
Exhibit C2 True copy of the notice containing with the endorsement made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the office of Advocate General
Exhibit C3 True copy of the location sketch
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25/6/26, FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 17327 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE LAND PUBLISHED, DATED 25/3/2023, IN THE KERALA GAZETTE STATE OF KERALA.
Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TREES STANDING IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF THE BASEMENT OF TREES IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER WHICH WERE CUT AND REMOVED.
Exhibit.P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT (UNDATED ) SWORN BY ADV M.J BABY PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT( UNDATED ) SWORN BY KUTTAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK DOWN LOADED FROM THE SITE, PUBLISHED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE IRINJALAKUDA SHOWING THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE NATURE OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/9/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SERVED ON THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit.P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/12/2022 SWORN BY CHARTERED ENGINEER P.D. LIMSON PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P8(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/12/2022 +ISSUED BY CHARTERED ENGINEER P.D. LIMSON PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit.P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/12/2022 SWORN BY PROF JOHNY SEBASTIAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P9(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/12/2022 +ISSUED BY PROF JOHNY SEBASTIAN PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/5/2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE STATUTORY APPEAL AND TYPED COPY.
Exhibit.P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 21/1/2021 EVIDENCING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES SOUGHT TO BE RE - CLAIMED.
Exhibit.P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/2/2024 IN W P ( C) 43904/2023 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
Exhibit.P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCIENTIFIC REPORT DATED 20/6/2024, PREPARED BY THE SCIENTIST ATTACHED TO THE KERALA STATE FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE PEECHI.
Exhibit.P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 24/10/2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit.P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/13/2025, IN APPEAL, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT.P16 Photograph Evidencing the existence of the compound wall all along the boundary, and also the passage of the high way abutting the compound wall of the properties
EXHIBIT.P16(a) Photograph evidencing the existence of the compound wall in the boundary, and the trees that are now standing by the boundary near to the compound wall, which is abutting the high Way.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit C1 True copy of Work memo preferred by the petitioner dated 21-01-2026
Exhibit C2 True copy of the notice containing with the endorsement made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the office of Advocate General
Exhibit C3 True copy of the location sketch
Exhibit C4 Photographs showing the remains of the cut trees
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25/6/26, FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT