BABU CHERIAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 23488 OF 2014 PETITIONER: BABU CHERIAN 7C, TOC H RETREAT, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI PIN-685603. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI-685613. THE TAHSILDAR UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI-685553. BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH SRI.JAFFERKHAN -SR.G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2024 ALONG WITH WP(C).23328/2014 AND W.P.(C)23861/2014, THE COURT ON 18.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 23861 OF 2014 PETITIONERS: 1 2 3 THOMAS MATHEW MANIMURIYIL HOUSE, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE. JOSE JOSEPH KALLIVAYALIL HOUSE, KALAKETTY, KOTTAYAM. RANI THANKACHAN KALLARIKKAL KADAVIL, CHERTHALA. BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI, PIN: 685 603. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI - 685 613. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI - 685 553. BY ADVS. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH SRI.JAFFERKHAN -SR.G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2024 ALONG WITH WP(C).23328/2014 AND W.P.(C)23488/2014, THE COURT ON 18.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 5 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Acg.C.J. & S.MANU, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of July, 2024 JUDGMENT S.MANU, J. Proceedings of the District Collector, Idukki dated

01.08.2014 by which assignment in LA 117/Chin/70 on the basis of which petitioners in all these writ petitions claim rights over properties was found to be bogus is under challenge in these three writ petitions. Petitioners in W.P. (C)No.23328/2014 asserts to have purchased different parcels of land from various persons who had claimed that the property under patta No.LA 117/Chin/70 was sold to them in fragments by the original assignee, namely, Valliammai. Petitioners in the other two writ petitions purchased different extents of land from the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23328/2014.

2. We refer to the parties and documents as per the status in W.P.(C)No.23328/2014. Proceedings of the District W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 6 Collector is produced as Ext.P19 in the said writ petition. The Collector issued Ext.P19 proceedings in compliance with direction issued by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C)No.29360/2009 by order dated 31.7.2012. Petitioners in all these cases together had filed the said writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.29360/2009. An order dated 25.9.2008 of the District Collector, cancelling the same patta was challenged in the said writ petition. This Court directed the Collector to cause fresh enquiry into the genuineness of the patta notwithstanding Ext.P15 and to take a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners also.

3. A perusal of Ext.P19 shows that the Collector had conducted elaborate enquiry into the issue in compliance with the order issued by this Court. Several opportunities were provided to the petitioners to present their case. Petitioners sought and obtained a number of postings for making submissions and producing documents. It is seen that between 17.9.2012, on which date the proceedings W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 7 commenced and 24.6.2014 on which date the hearing was concluded there were 11 more hearings. Altogether on 13 occasions the matter was considered by the Collector. The District Collector undertook verification of all relevant documents during the course of the enquiry.

4. Petitioners have alleged in these writ petitions that the proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Their contention is that fair opportunity to present their case was not provided during the enquiry by the District Collector. According to them, the District Collector collected materials behind their back and delayed supply of copies to them. They also assailed the findings and conclusions of the Collector stating that his approach and analysis is arbitrary and perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revenue authorities have proceeded in this matter with a highly prejudiced approach and failed to appreciate the contentions and materials produced by the petitioners. He also submitted that the petitioners have purchased properties W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 8 with bonafide belief that the patta is genuine and they have not committed any fraud as alleged by the authorities. He also contended that the reasons stated by the revenue authorities in support of the conclusion that the assignment is bogus are not sustainable.

5. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand argued that this is yet another case of grabbing of Government land by creating bogus patta and earning profits by selling the land under the patta to different persons. He took us through the documents and submitted that manipulations that have happened in this case are well evident from the documents produced by the parties. He also took us through Ext.P19 proceedings of the District Collector wherein the Collector has referred to various materials as also facts and circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the patta, on the basis of which all the petitioners are claiming rights, was actually bogus.

6. In a proceeding under Article 226 the Court is not expected to undertake deeper analysis of evidence and W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 9 factual disputes. Such exercises are not within the contours of judicial review. We are not therefore expected to sit in appeal over the proceedings of the District Collector. Only if the court finds that the proceedings are flawed for violation of the principles of natural justice, conclusions are based on irrelevant considerations, there is failure to take into account relevant inputs or failure to ensure proper application of mind, failure to appreciate the applicable legal provisions etc it can interfere. If no such grounds are available then the writ court has to keep it hands off.

7. We have carefully gone through the impugned proceedings. The District Collector has elaborately stated in the proceedings about the number of opportunities provided to the petitioners to present their case and also to produce materials. The matter was considered by the Collector on 13 occasions. Though the petitioners had obtained an order from this Court in W.P.(C)No.29360/2009 for getting the proceedings concluded within two months on 31.7.2012 and the first hearing was fixed on 17.9.2012, the Collector has W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 10 recorded in the proceedings that on the said day the petitioners sought time till 31.10.2012 for presenting their case. Therefore, it is clear that at the very first occasion the petitioners' request was to adjourn the matter for a period of more than one month, to a date beyond the time limit fixed by this Court in the order dated 31.7.2012. The proceedings which commenced on 17.9.2012 extended till

24.6.2014, for about a period of nearly two years and culminated in Ext.P19 on 01.08.2014. The Collector has recorded in the proceedings that the request for perusal of files made by the petitioners was also acceded to. It is also stated that copies of various documents sought by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act were also provided. It is seen that the fee was remitted for the said purpose and the receipt was produced only on 18.7.2014. As the proceedings had commenced on 17.9.2012 if the petitioners genuinely required any documents they could have very well submitted applications under the RTI Act much earlier and obtained copies. However, it is seen that W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 11 they waited for nearly two years to submit application under the RTI Act. It shows the lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioners in seeking copies of documents. It is to be suspected whether such an application was made at a highly belated point of time only for the purpose of raising a ground that they were not provided with the documents during the course of enquiry. The statements of the District Collector regarding the procedure followed and also the opportunities provided are sufficient to show that principles of natural justice were properly followed and sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioners. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions regarding violations of principles of natural justice and denial of fair opportunity to effectively participate in the enquiry.

8. A reading of Ext.P19 proceedings also satisfies us about proper application of mind by the District Collector. The enquiry was regarding the assignment in favour of Valliammai as explained at the beginning. The Collector has perused all relevant files and relevant materials. He has W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 12 applied his mind properly to the materials and analysed the same properly. We do not find any irregularity or impropriety on these grounds also. Every relevant aspect has been properly considered and clearly addressed in the proceedings.

9. In fact the analysis of the Collector unravels a fraudulent transaction. The Collector has pointed out various factors which indicate that the assignment claimed to have been made in favour of Valliammai was bogus. We will point out some of the glaring factual findings in this regard hereafter.

10. Copies of the basic document that is patta No.LA 117/Chin/70 were produced by the petitioners in different proceedings. In W.P.(C)No.29360/2009 the copy of the patta was produced as Ext.P18. In an appeal submitted to the Commissioner of Land Revenue also a copy was produced. The said copy was produced and marked as Ext.P4 in W.P. (C)No.17511/2008. Another copy was submitted by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.29360/2009 to the RDO, W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 13 Devikulam. The Collector has noted that those three copies submitted are contrasting in many aspects. The seal of the office of issue affixed is of Special Tahsildar for Survey and Categorization of Cultivable Waste Land, Nedumkandom. However, the authority who was empowered to grant the patta even as per the claim of the petitioners should be Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment), Nedumkandom. In one of the copies the word 'survey' in the office seal is mis-spelt. In another copy the said mis-spelt letter is seen removed from the seal. The third copy shows another seal with the correct spelling of the word 'survey'. It is also noted that the signature of the Tahsildar appearing in the three copies produced also vary. It is seen that the signature of the assignee in one of the copies is in Tamil. However, in the other two copies it is in English with material differences. On comparison it is evident that the hand-writings in which the patta is prepared varies in each copy. We have also compared these three copies. Even a cursory glance would show that the copies are different from each other. In W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 14 other words, without any forensic or scientific examination it can be concluded by any prudent man that the copies produced by the petitioners before various authorities are materially different from each other.

11. The Collector has stated in Ext.P19 that office copy of the patta is not available in the land assignment file. Tahsildar, Udumbanchola after verification of the assignment file opined that there is reason to believe that the pages of the assignment file are manipulated. It is noted that vax- crayons are used to outline the sketch which was not the practice followed in genuine patta files of 1970s. Numerous insertions and over-writings were also found in the order of assignment which forms part of the assignment file. Differences in hand-writings were also noted. Triplicate copies of cash receipts instead of originals of cash receipts are kept in the assignment file. It was noted by the Tahsildar that the said pattern was found in forged files of Chinnakkanal Village also. Further it was noticed that there was no proper statutory notice under Section 12(1). W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 15

12. The Revenue Authorities verified some documents executed later on the basis of the suspected patta. Three documents examined by the authorities are the following:-

1.Document No.11/10/2001 Power of attorny in favour of K.C.Varkey – 0.95 Acres.

2. Document No.3414/2000 Deed in favour of Grace Thomas - 0.40 Acres

3. Document No.1604/1997 Deed in faour of Boby Zacharia - 1.55 Acres The Collector noticed that the signature of the executor namely Valliammai differed from document to document and did not tally with the signature in the pattas. The enquiry by the Village Officer, Chinnakkanal revealed that Valliammai, D/o.Kasi Viswanathan, resident at Vilakku in Chinnakkanal Village expired during 1985-86. If that be so, execution of the above mentioned three deeds cannot be by the original assignee. Case of the petitioners is that the original assignee expired only on 06.04.2008. They produced certificate of death issued by Chinnakkanal Grama Panchayat which stated that 'Valliyammal, wife of Kanthayya, 6/32, Shanmughavilasom, Suryanelli P.O” W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 16 expired on 06.04.2008.' There is no plausible explanation from the petitioners for the difference in the address shown in the said document compared to the address shown in the patta.

13. The Collector, apart from entering into the conclusion that the claimed assignment as per LA 117/Chin/70 is bogus and directing that the occupants be evicted, recommended that the matter shall be referred to the Superintendent of Police, Idukki for investigation.

14. On perusal of the documents produced by both sides in these cases and analysis of rival contentions we are of the view that this is yet another case of well planned land grabbing. Manipulations adopted in this case are evident from the face of the relevant records including copies of patta produced by the petitioners before various authorities. Even the identity of the original assignee is under cloud of suspicion. An extent of 3 acres of land is covered by the bogus patta. As we noted already, while exercising the power of judicial review we are not expected to undertake W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 17 any roving enquiry, examination of documents, analysis of evidence, etc. On perusal of Ext.P19, the impugned proceedings of the District Collector, we are satisfied that the Collector as well as sub-ordinate revenue officials have gathered all available relevant materials during the course of the enquiry. The Collector has examined all relevant records and documents produced by the petitioners. Genuineness of the assignment was also verified. The Collector has given elaborate reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the claimed assignment is bogus. Having found that the claimed assignment was not genuine, the Collector has directed to resume the land and also to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act against the occupants. The same is definitely a proper course of action. We find no reason to interfere with Ext.P19 proceedings in these circumstances.

15. We notice that the Collector in his proceedings had recommended to refer the matter to the District Police Chief, Idukki as he felt that the documents will have to be W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 18 subjected to forensic examination. He also felt the necessity to have action by police in the matter. We firmly endorse the view of the District Collector in this regard. It is not a matter to be lightly ignored that the petitioners produced copies of the patta which apparently vary from each other before this Court and also before the revenue authorities. We on comparison of the copies are satisfied that the same differ from each other in many particulars. The manipulations made in the assignment file are also indicated in the report of the Collector. Fraud played by the concerned in this matter is well evident. Three acres of land vested with the Government which is valuable public property has been prima facie grabbed. This could not have been possible without connivance of revenue officers.

16. We have expressed our anguish about the large scale land grabbing happened in Idukki District in many cases. Substantial chunk of public land has been already encroached upon. Land vested with the Government is public wealth. It is nations wealth. Securing of such W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 19 properties from encroachers and land grabbers is required in public interest. Those who have grabbed public lands and facilitators shall be proceeded against without fail. They shall face the music for the misdeeds. We therefore find it appropriate to direct the Special Investigation Team constituted as per G.O.(Rt.)No.1867/2024/Home dated

02.07.2024 pursuant to the order issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.1801/2010, to take up this matter for a thorough probe. The learned Government Pleader shall supply copies of all pleadings in these writ petitions to the Chairman of the Special Investigation Team along with a copy of this judgment. The revenue authorities shall provide the relevant records for verification and appropriate action by the Special Investigation Team. The Special Investigation Team shall initiate appropriate action in this matter after perusal of all relevant records within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appropriate action including proceedings under the criminal laws shall be initiated against all who are involved in the W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 20 fraudulent transactions including officials and retired officials. Writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S.MANU, JUDGE W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 21 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23328/2014 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: EXHIBIT-P2: EXHIBIT-P3: EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF APTTA TO VALLIAMMAL. TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY VALLIAMMAL. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED UNDER RULE 12(1) OF THE RULES IN THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE CHINNAKKANAL PANCHAYAT. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ON REGISTRY DATED 31.8.1970 BY THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.LA 117/70. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.10.2008. EXHIBIT-P7: EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5.12.2008. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.2.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.3494 OF 2009. EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 05.05.2009. EXHIBIT-P10: EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05.05.2009. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.9.2009 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED NOTICE. EXHIBIT-P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.10.20009. EXHIBIT-P14: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.10.2009. EXHIBIT-P15: EXHIBIT-P16: EXHIBIT-P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.10.2009. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 31.7.2012 IN WP(C) NO.29360 OF 2009. EXHIBIT-P18: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 22

18.7.2014. EXHIBIT-P19: EXHIBIT-P20: EXHIBIT-P21: EXHIBIT-P22: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.08.2014 OF RESPONDENT NO.2. TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 21.01.2012 BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH, DEATH AND MARRIAGE, CHINNAKKANAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.A2-4484/12 DATED 2.4.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.8.2011 AND THE SRUVEY RECORD RECEIVED ALONG WITH IT. EXHIBIT-P23: TRUE COPY OF GO(KI) NO.409/12/REVENUE DATED 31.10.2012. W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 23 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23488/2014 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT No.1604/1997 DTD.9/6/1997 OF RAJAKUMARI SUB REGISTRY. TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR PRPARED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF PATTA IN LA NO. 117/70. TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY SMT. VALLIAMMAL IN RELATION TO AN ASSIGNMENT APPLICATION. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED UNDER RULE 12(1) OF THE KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES IN THE NOTICE BOARD OF CHINNAKKANAL PANCHAYATH. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF REGISTRY DATED 31-8-1970 ISSUED OF THE PATTA DATED 25-5-1971 ISSUED IN LA FILE NO.117/70. TRUE COPY OF PATTA DATED 25-5-1971 ISSUED IN LA FILE NO. 117/70. TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF LAND TAX DATED 6-8- 1997 IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF REGISTRY. TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF LAND TAX DATED 16- 11-2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHINNAKANAL. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25-9-2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31-7-2012 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC No. 29360/2009. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 2-4-2013 WRITTEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 8-5-2012 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS DATED 12-6-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH ANNEXURES. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-8-2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 24 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23861/2014 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3617/2000 DATED 16/12/2000 OF RAJAKUMARI SUB REGISTRY. TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2025/2005 DATED 28/7/2005 OF RAJAKUMARI SUB REGISTRY. TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.552/2007 DATED 15/3/2007 OF RAJAKUMARI SUB REGISTRY. TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR PREPARED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF PATTA IN LA NO.117/70. TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY SMT.VALLIAMMAL IN RELATION TO AN ASSIGNMENT APPLICTION. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED UNDER RULE 12(1) OF THE KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES IN THE NOTICE BOARD OF CHINNAKANAL PANCHAYATH. TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT OF REGISTRY DATED 31/8/1970 ISSUED OF THE PATTA DATED 25/5/1971 ISSUED IN LA FILE NO.117/70. TRUE COPY OF PATTA DATED 25/5/1971 ISSUED IN LA FILE NO.117/70. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/9/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 31/7/2012 ISSUED BY THIS COURT IN WPC NO.29360/2009. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 2/4/2013 WRITTEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 8/5/2012 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. W.P.(C.)Nos.23328, 23488 & 23861 of 2014 25 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS DTD.12/6/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.8.2014 PASSED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT