JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The petitioner has purchased 4.10 Ares of land by Ext. P-1 Assignment Deed. The said property is having 2 Taks, first Tak in 265/1A/12/9 0.25.5 ares and the second tak in 265/1A/12/a 3.85 ares. The petitioner does not have any other land on the earth. The petitioner is working as an assistant in a Chicken stall and is belonging to BPL category. Though the sale-deed shows the land as paddy land, Ext. P-2 Data Bank shows that it was converted as Garden Land 25 years before the commencement of the Act 28 of 2008. Since the petitioner is having only 4.10 Ares of land and the building proposed to be constructed is only 118.48 M2 (1275 Sq. Feet) and the construction being carried out in 3.85 ares in the second Tak, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of 27(A) (6) of Act 28/2008. The said benefit is rejected for the reason that exemption is applicable only to such persons who are holding 4.04 Ares of land equivalent to 10 cents. As a matter of fact Exhibit P9 stop memo shows that the construction is proposed to be carried out in 3.85 ares, second Tak of Exhibit P1 deed. Exhibit P2 data bank shows that the property had already been converted 25 years before the commencement of Act 28/2008. Thus, as the land is not un-notified land, Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, is not applicable. Further only because the land held by the petitioner is having a fractional larger extent than 10 cents, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of Section 27(A) (6) of Act 28 of 2008. At any rate the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit at least for the 10 cents of land covered by Exhibit P1 deed. Though the petitioner earlier filed WP (C) No. 8813 of 2020, the same was withdrawn since necessary pleadings and reliefs were not made therein. Hence this Writ Petition is filed for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 27 (A) (6) of Act 28/2008 and he can proceed with the construction in 10 cents of land out of 10.1 cents land converted by Exhibit P1 deed. Hence this Writ Petition is filed for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 27 (A) (6) of Act 28/2008 and he can proceed with the construction in 10 cents of land out of 10.1 cents land converted by Exhibit P1 deed. It is in the light of these factual averments, that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, Exhibit P-9 stop memo. (ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 27(A) (6) of Act 28 of 2008 and that he can proceed with construction of house covered by Exhibit P6 Building plan in the property at least in an extent of 10 cents out of 10.1 cents covered by Exhibit P1 sale-deed. (iii) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri. K.K. Mohammed Rauf, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and Sri. Millu Dandapani, learned Standing Counsel for the Valanchery Municipality appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the abovesaid subject property covered by Ext.P-1 registered assignment deed having an extent of 4.10 Ares (10 cents) is the only property owned by him where he could construct a residential building. Further that the petitioner is engaged as a worker in a chicken stall and that he belongs to socially and educationally backward community and that his income is limited and is included in the BPL category for the purpose of his income. That the subject property covered by Ext.P-1 though continued to be described as nilam/paddy land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), the same has been converted long prior to 12.8.2008 (the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Land Act, 2008). However the property has been included in the draft data bank prepared as per the provisions contained under the 2008 Act as converted land about 25 years prior to the 2008 Act as can be seen from Ext.P-2 draft data bank published by the 2nd respondent-Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. However the property has been included in the draft data bank prepared as per the provisions contained under the 2008 Act as converted land about 25 years prior to the 2008 Act as can be seen from Ext.P-2 draft data bank published by the 2nd respondent-Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The petitioner has earlier filed application before the 1st respondent: RDO for exclusion of the subject property from the land data bank and this Court as per Ext.P-8 judgment rendered as early as on 12.3.2020 in W.P. (C) No. 7602/2020 filed by the petitioner herein has already directed the respondent-RDO to consider the said request in the application and to take a considered decision afresh thereon on the plea of the petitioner for exclusion of the subject property from the land data bank within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the said judgment. However, this Court has made it clear that the abovesaid directions issued by this Court in Ext.P-8 will be without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner that he is even otherwise entitled to get the benefit of Sec. 27A(6) of the 2008 Act and at least in respect of 4.04 Ares of land out of the total 4.10 Ares of his property. According to the petitioner so far the respondent-RDO has not passed final orders on the said application referred to in Ext.P-8 judgment for exclusion of the subject property from the land data bank. The present plea of the petitioner is for adjudicating his rights regarding his claimed entitlement in terms of Sec. 27A(6) of the 2008 Act. Sec. 27A(6) of the 2008 Act reads as follows: “27A. Change of nature of un-notified land: (1) xxx xxx xxx (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), no permission under this section shall be necessary for constructing a residential building having a maximum area of 120 square metres in a maximum extent of 4.04 ares of land or a commercial building having a maximum area of 40 square metres in a maximum extent of 2.02 ares of land: Provided that the construction of a housing complex or complexes or flats or multi-storied residential complexes shall not come within the meaning of residential building specified in this sub-section. Provided further that this exemption shall be granted only once.” The petitioner would contend that since the only property owned by the petitioner is the one as covered by Ext.P-1, he is entitled for the benefit of Sec. 27A(6) at least for the extent of property of 4.04 Ares out of total extent of 4.10 Ares covered by Ext.P-1 title deed. 4. Per contra, Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader would submit that the claim under Sec. 27A(6) would apply only in terms of ‘un-notified land’ as understood in Sec. 2 (xvii-A) of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and further that since the provisions contained in Sec. 27A(6) are beneficial provisions, the same will have to be construed strictly and therefore the claim would come into play only if the maximum extent of the land of the land owner is having an extent of 4.04 Ares or below, and the maximum extent of the building sought to be constructed does not exceed the limit of 120sq.m. mentioned therein. Hence it is urged by the learned Government Pleader that since the total extent of the land covered by Ext.P-1 title deed is 4.10 ares, which exceeds the limit of 4.04 Ares, even going by the case of the petitioner it cannot be said that the petitioner would be entitled to ger the benefit of Sec. 27A(6). 5. Hence it is urged by the learned Government Pleader that since the total extent of the land covered by Ext.P-1 title deed is 4.10 ares, which exceeds the limit of 4.04 Ares, even going by the case of the petitioner it cannot be said that the petitioner would be entitled to ger the benefit of Sec. 27A(6). 5. To resolve the abovesaid controversy, it will be pertinent to refer to Sec. 2 (xvii-A) of the 2008 Act which defines ‘un-notified land’ as follows: “Sec. 2 (xvii-A): “Un-notified land” means the lands within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee which have been included as paddy land or wetland in the basic tax register maintained in Village Offices, but are not notified as paddy land or wetland under sub-section (4) of Section 5 or where data bank has not been published under the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 5, the lands which have already been filled up on the date of commencement of this Act and are not paddy land according to the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing Centre and the Local Level Monitoring Committee or where the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing Centre is not available, lands which are not paddy land according to the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee.” A reading of Sec. 2 (xvii-A) of the Act would make it clear that the ‘un-notified land’ means land within the jurisdiction of the Committee (viz. LLMC) which have been included as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wet land’ in the BTR maintained by the Village Office, but are not notified as ‘paddy land’ or ‘wet land’ under Sec. 5(4) or where the data bank has not been published under the provisions of the Sec. 5(4)(i), lands which have already been filled up on the date of commencement of this Act and are not paddy land or wet land according to the report of KSREC and the LLMC or where the report of the KSREC is not available, lands which are not paddy land according to the report of the LLMC. According to the learned Government Pleader, he has been instructed to submit that the property has been included in the finally published data bank in terms of Sec. 5(4)(i) with the remarks ‘converted’ prior to 25 years to the 2008 Act. According to the learned Government Pleader, he has been instructed to submit that the property has been included in the finally published data bank in terms of Sec. 5(4)(i) with the remarks ‘converted’ prior to 25 years to the 2008 Act. It goes without saying that such draft data bank or final data bank would have been issued only after the requisite inspection of the statutory LLMC of the area concerned. It appears that the respondents do not have any case that the said data bank has been prepared after obtaining satellite pictures and expert opinion of the KSREC. Hence it can be seen that the subject property covered by Ext.P-1 has been included in the data bank with the abovesaid remarks. Even going by the admitted case of the respondents the finding of the LLMC in their inspection and inspection report is to the effect that the subject property has been converted about 25 years prior to the coming into force of the 2008 Act. Hence the LLMC does not have any case that the subject property will fulfil the definition of ‘paddy land’ as per Sec. 2(xii) of the 2008 Act or the definition of ‘wet land’ as per Sec. 2(xviii) of the 2008 Act as on the crucial cut off date of 12.8.2008 (the date of coming into force of the 2008 Act). Hence prima facie, this Court is of the view that a property which has been included in the draft data bank/final data bank pursuant to the inspection of the LLMC with the finding that the property has been converted prior to 2008 Act should be treated as a land, which, according to the LLMC, is not paddy land and hence the subject property would prima facie come within the last limb of the definition of ‘un-notified land’ as per Sec. 2 (xvii-A). However, this Court is not now making any final opinion on that aspect of the matter. That apart, it may be only in the interest of the property holder that such a property is got excluded from the land data bank as otherwise it may later lead to unnecessary confusions and avoidable controversies. However, this Court is not now making any final opinion on that aspect of the matter. That apart, it may be only in the interest of the property holder that such a property is got excluded from the land data bank as otherwise it may later lead to unnecessary confusions and avoidable controversies. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that this Court in decisions as in Salil C.K. and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2017 (1) KHC 394 , has held that even if the property is included in the data bank as ‘converted land’ it is only in the fitness of things that orders are obtained from the competent authority to get the property excluded from the date bank. Moreover, this Court has already directed in Ext.P-8 judgment that the application of the petitioner for excluding the subject property from the land data bank should be considered and decided by the respondent-RDO. Hence at this point of time, this Court is not making any final pronouncement on the issue as to whether the subject property covered by Ext.P-1 title deed would fulfil the definition of ‘un-notified’ land as per Sec. 2 (xvii-A) of the Act and also as to whether the claim of the petitioner for entitlement of the petitioner under Sec. 27A(6) could be considered even before orders are obtained from the competent authority for exclusion of the subject property from the land data bank. The said issue is left open and it need be agitated only in case the decision of the respondent-RDO on the matters directed in Ext.P-8 is adverse to the petitioner. As regards the latter contention raised by the learned Government Pleader, it has to be borne in mind that Ext.P-5 is the certificate dated 9.3.2020 issued by none other than the 4th respondent, after appropriate enquiry that the abovesaid property having an extent of 4.10 Ares covered by Ext.P-1 title deed is the only property owned by the petitioner and that he has no other property to construct any residential building. Of course there is no explicit condition in Sec. 27A(6) that the claimant therein should have only the said property claimed under Sec. 27(A)(6) unlike the provisions contained in Sec. 9(1) of the 2008 Act which deals with grant of permission to construct residential building in a property which would even otherwise fulfil the definition of ‘paddy land’ as per Sec. 2(xii) of the 2008 Act. However, there is force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that since Sec. 27A(6) is a beneficial provision, the same will have to be construed strictly. The fact of the matter is that the total extent of the property covered by Ext.P-1 is 4.10 ares (10 cents). According to the petitioner, when he purchased the said property as per Ext.P-1 on 10.4.2019 he did not have any choice to limit the purchase only to 4.04 ares as envisaged in Sec. 27A(6) as the seller insisted that the whole of the property will have to be purchased. It is seen from Ext.P-5 certificate that the subject property is the only property owned by the petitioner and as the petitioner belongs to BPL income category and as he belongs to socially and educationally backward community, etc. this Court is inclined to take the view that as the total extent of the property owned by the petitioner as per Ext.P-1 is 4.10 Ares which is only marginally in excess of the limit of 4.04 ares of land as envisaged in Sec. 27A(6), it could be ordered in the interest of justice that the petitioner could be given the benefit of the said provision at least to the extent of 4.04 ares out of 4.10 ares covered by Ext.P-1 title deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner would file an affidavit of undertaking before the competent authority, if directed by this Court that he would limit his claim under Sec. 27A(6) only to the maximum extent of 4.04 ares out of the total extent of 4.10 Ares of land covered by Ext.P-1 title deed and further that he would also undertake that the construction made by the petitioner in the said property having an extent of 4.04 Ares of residential building would not exceed the maximum limit of 120 sq. m. etc. 6. m. etc. 6. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to overrule the said objections raised by the 2nd respondent based on the contention that the extent of the land covered by Ext.P-1 of 4.10 Ares exceeds the limit of 4.04 Ares covered by Sec. 27A(6). Hence, it is ordered and declared that the claim of the petitioner for entitlement under Sec. 27A(6) may be limited to 4.04 Ares out of 4.10 Ares covered by Ext.P-1 title deed. Further a reading of Sec. 27A(6) would make it clear that no statutory permission is required from any competent revenue authorities for getting the benefit of Sec. 27A(6). In case the eligible claimant violates the requirement of the provisions under Sec. 27A(6) in respect of maximum extent of the proposed construction then sufficient safeguards are also stipulated in Sec. 27A(7) of the said Act, whereby it has been mandated that exemption under sub-section (6) shall be applicable only to owners of un-notified lands under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018, provided that if the area of the residential building or commercial building exempted under sub-section (6) is subsequently increased by new extension, the exemption under sub-section (6) shall cease to have effect and the owner of the land as on the date of detection of the new extension shall be liable to pay fee as per sub-section (3). 7. Once a person is entitled for the benefit of Sec. 27A(6), then the said person could also seek change of records of the BTR in respect of the subject property as envisaged in Sec. 27C which reads as follows: “Sec. 27C. Changes in records:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any other Authority, wherever a part of a survey number or subdivision is permitted to be converted under Sections 8, 9, 10 or 27A of this Act, a new subdivision shall be created for the extent for which such orders for conversion are issued. (2) Where the paddy land or un-notified land is duly converted as per the provisions of this Act, the Tahsildar shall reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (13 of 1961) and make necessary entries in revenue records relating to such lands. (3) Where such changes are recorded in revenue records, the number and date of the order and the authority granting sanction, the survey number of the lands for which sanction has been accorded, extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded and the revised land tax shall be clearly recorded ensuring that the old entries are legible. (4) Tahsildar shall conduct periodical inspection to ensure that changes in revenue records are in accordance with sub-section. (5) No attempt shall be made to alter or change or modify the revenue records relating to the paddy land or wetland or un-notified land otherwise than in accordance with sub-section (3).” A reading of Sec. 27C(1) would make it clear that the said benefit would come into play whenever a part of the survey number or sub division is permitted to be converted as per Secs. 8, 9, 10 and 27A of the Act then a new sub division shall be created for the said extent for which orders of conversion are required. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 27C further mandates that where paddy land or un-notified land is duly converted as per the provisions of the said Act, then the Tahsildar is obliged to re-assess the land tax under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act and make necessary entries in the revenue records in respect of such lands. The benefit of the provisions conceived in Sec. 27C(2) regarding the applicability of Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act would come into pay even in respect of the entitlement under Sec. 27A(6). Hence, after a person who is entitled for the benefit of Sec. 27A(6), uses the said property for making construction he is also entitled to make necessary request under Sec. 27C(2) r/w Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the Tahsildar concerned for alteration of BTR to show the changed nature of the subject property as ‘garden land/purayidam’ instead of the earlier entries as ‘nilam/paddy land.’ 8. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and Others vs. Mariumma and Another, 2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB) that in a case where the property holder obtains necessary statutory permission from the notified officer under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, then the earlier assessment made by the Tahsildar concerned in terms of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder whereby the subject property has been shown as ‘nilam/paddy land’ in the BTR will become redundant and superfluous and in such a case, the statutory taxation officer, viz. Tahsildar concerned is statutorily obliged to make re-assessment of the subject property to correctly show the changed nature of the land as ‘garden land/purayidam’ so that higher land tax for such garden land/purayidam is collected from the land holder. Though the said dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mariyumma’s case (supra) in the context of permissions granted under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order the same would apply with equal vigour in a case where statutory permission has been secured by the land holder concerned either in terms of Sec. 27A(1), or in terms of 27(A)(6) or in terms of proviso to and 27A(3), etc. or in case permission is secured in terms of Secs. 8, 9 and 10, etc. as can be seen from the mandatory provisions contained in Sec. 27C(1) of the 2008 Act. So in a case where a party is entitled for the benefit of Sec. 27A(A)(6) and also secures grant of building permit, etc. then the party concerned is equally entitled to maintain an application in terms of Sec. 27C(2) r/w Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the competent Tahsildar concerned for re-assessment of the subject property under Kerala Land Tax Act and to secure additional entries in the BTR to show the changed nature of the land as ‘garden land/purayidam’ instead of the earlier BTR entries as ‘nilam/paddy land’ so that higher land tax is collected from the land holder concerned. This is so, as going by the tax rate structure notified as per the Kerala Land Tax Rules, the land tax applicable to a property which is shown as ‘nilam/paddy land’ is lower than the property which is described as ‘garden land/purayidam’ in the basic tax register. This is so, as going by the tax rate structure notified as per the Kerala Land Tax Rules, the land tax applicable to a property which is shown as ‘nilam/paddy land’ is lower than the property which is described as ‘garden land/purayidam’ in the basic tax register. Therefore, it goes without saying that in such cases where the statutory permission has been obtained either in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order or in terms of the provisions contained in Secs. 8, 9 and 10 of Sec. 27A including its various sub-sections as the case may be, then the respondent-Tahsildar concerned, who is the statutory authority, is obliged to ensure that such fresh assessment is made so that higher land tax is collected from land owner concerned. 9. However, though formal statutory permission is not conceived in Sec. 27(A)(6), it will be better only in the interest of administration and for clarity that the person concerned should atleast ensure that the claim is examined by competent revenue officials like the Village Officer concerned who may conduct enquiry and ascertain as to whether the claimant is eligible in terms of the requirement of Sec. 27A(6) and may draw up sketch of the property so that the said papers of the Village Officer could be produced before the Secretary of the Panchayath/Municipality concerned for getting the application for building permit considered, as quite often it will be very difficult for the Secretary of the Panchayath/Municipality concerned to assess the claim of a person claiming entitlement of Sec. 27A(6). Accordingly, the following orders and directions are issued: (i) The 1st respondent-RDO will ensure that the directions in Ext.P-8 judgment for considering the passing orders on the application of the petitioner for excluding the subject property from the land data bank are rendered without any further delay, at any rate, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. This Court is granting the said time extension as it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the 1st respondent-RDO would have faced difficulties with complying with the directions within the time limit in Ext.P-8 judgment on account of the issues arising out of Covid-19 pandemic scenario. This Court is granting the said time extension as it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the 1st respondent-RDO would have faced difficulties with complying with the directions within the time limit in Ext.P-8 judgment on account of the issues arising out of Covid-19 pandemic scenario. It shall be ensured that the 1st respondent will communicate a copy of the proceedings so issued by him to the petitioner as well as to the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, 3rd respondent-Village Officer, 4th respondent-Secretary of the Valanchery Municipality. (ii) Thereafter the petitioner may approach the 3rd respondent-Village Officer by filing a petition claiming the benefit of Sec. 27A(6) and also giving an undertaking before the 3rd respondent that the proposed construction of the residential building sought by him will not exceed 120 sq. m. and that he would limit his claim only in respect of 4.04 Ares out of the total extent of 4.10 Ares covered by Ext.P-1 title deed. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent-Village Officer will conduct necessary enquiry and may also ascertain the correctness of the aspects made out in Ext.P-5 certificate and then may also conduct site inspection with notice to the petitioner and then prepare a sketch and if it is found that the petitioner would come within the eligibility zone of Sec. 27A(6), then the 3rd respondent may prepare sketch of the property whereby 4.04 ares of the property out of 4.10 ares covered by Ext.P-1 should be identified and demarcated. Thereafter the petitioner may produce the said sketch so issued by the 3rd respondent-Village Officer in respect of 4.04 ares of land to the 4th respondent-Secretary of the Valanchery Municipality and should also give an undertaking before the 4th respondent that construction of the residential building proposed by him in the said land having an extent of 4.04 ares will not exceed 120 sq.m. as required under Sec. 27A(6). (iii) Thereupon, the 4th respondent-Secretary of the Valanchery Municipality will consider the application that is to be submitted by the petitioner for grant of building permit in accordance with the applicable statutory building Rules and may pass orders thereon. (iii) Thereupon, the 4th respondent-Secretary of the Valanchery Municipality will consider the application that is to be submitted by the petitioner for grant of building permit in accordance with the applicable statutory building Rules and may pass orders thereon. (iv) In case the 4th respondent-Secretary of the Valanchery Municipality grants building permit in favour of the petitioner in the abovesaid limited property covered by Ext.P-1 title deed, then the petitioner may file requisite application under Sec. 27C(2) r/w Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the 5th respondent-Tahsildar for reassessment of the subject property for alteration of the BTR for securing additional entries in the BTR to show the changed nature of the property as ‘garden land/purayidam’ instead of the earlier entries in the BTR as ‘nilam/paddy land.’ (v) On receiving such application and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 5th respondent-Tahsildar may consider the request of the petitioner for re-assessment of the subject property in terms of Sec. 27C r/w Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for the said extent of the property not exceeding 4.04 ares, which is shown in the said sketch so prepared by the 3rd respondent-Village Officer and which is covered in the building permit that may be issued by the 4th respondent-Municpal Secretary. Orders in that regard should be duly passed by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of submission of the application along with requisite documents like the aforesaid sketch prepared by the 3rd respondent-Village Officer and the copy of the building permit that may be issued by the 4th respondent as afore-directed. It is made clear that in case the petitioner violates any of the conditions in the Sec. 27A(6), then it goes without saying that the proviso to Sec. 27A(7) would come into play, in which case the petitioner will be liable to pay the entire prescribed fee as mandated under Sec. 27A(3) and Rule 12(9) of the Rules. 10. It is made clear that the abovesaid directions regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for 4.04 ares of land out of 4.10 ares covered by Ext.P-1 title deed have been issued by this Court taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account various extenuating factors mentioned hereinabove. 11. 10. It is made clear that the abovesaid directions regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for 4.04 ares of land out of 4.10 ares covered by Ext.P-1 title deed have been issued by this Court taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account various extenuating factors mentioned hereinabove. 11. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this judgment along with copies of the memorandum of Writ Petition with all exhibits before the respondents for necessary information and further action. 12. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.