IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16549 of 2010(P)
1. T.K.THANKAPPAN,
... Petitioner
2. C.P.KESAVADAS,
3. JAISON JAMES,
4. T.THOMAS,
5. DR.V.CHANDRABHANU,
6. M.T.JOSE,
7. V.M.VIJAYAGOPAL,
8. N.SEETHARAMAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,
3. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, MAIN OFFICE,
4. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
5. THE ERNAKULAM CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, GCDA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :08/06/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------
WP (C) NO. 16549 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners here in are the members of the fifth
respondent Co-operative House Construction Society.
They are also some of the allottees of plots in the Jawahar
Nagar Project Scheme formulated by the fifth respondent
Society. The scheme framed includes provision for
common amenities like road, school, park, shopping
complex etc. It is pointed out in the writ petition that the
scheme and lay out were sanctioned by the Government
under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act. The land
value was fixed taking into consideration of the total
value of the land purchased by the fifth respondent
Society and the value of land earmarked for common
amenities.
2. It is pointed in the writ petition that the fifth
2
WP (C) NO. 16549 of 2010
respondent Society has approached respondents 1 to 4 to
seek a variation of the scheme and to earmark these items
of the properties for the construction of a multi-storeyed
apartment building. It is the case of the petitioners that
the same cannot be permitted.
3. Apprehending such action on the part of the
respondents the petitioners have filed various
representations before the Chief Town Planner Secretary
of the Local Self Government Department and the
Secretary of the Cochin Corporation. As no positive reply
has been given so far in the matter this writ petition has
been filed.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned standing
counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Corporation. It
was submitted that even though the 5th respondent
submitted an application before the Corporation, so far no
decision has been taken. The Government has also not
taken a decision in the matter.
3
WP (C) NO. 16549 of 2010
5. In that view of the matter there will be a direction
that the objections raised by the petitioners will be
considered by the Government and the Corporation
before any final decision is taken. Till such orders are
passed the status quo as on today will be maintained. No
costs.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE.
rkc