IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30657 of 2007(Y)
1. ROBERT FERNANDEZ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,
4. SYED MOHAMMED KHAN,
5. CHIEF ENGINEER,
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY
For Respondent :SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 30657 of 2007
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 24, 2008
JUDGMENT
several reliefs are sought for in this writ petition on the
basic allegation that in between the petitioner’s house (TC
4/904) and the 4th respondent’s house (TC 4/902 & 903), there is
a canal maintained by the Minor Irrigation Department, the 5th
respondent. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent
covered the canal by putting slabs and has constructed a roof
over the same connecting the same with his compound wall and
is using that space as a room. This construction, according to
the petitioner, is not covered by any building permit and is thus
unauthorised.
2. The 4th respondent has sworn to an affidavit contending
that he has not made any unauthorised construction. According
to him, the allegations to the contrary are all incorrect. But
then, the office note of the Corporation produced along with the
commission report as Ext.C7 and the counter statement filed by
the Corporation suggests otherwise. The Corporation submits
WP(C) 30657/2007
2
that if there is any unauthorised construction, they will take
appropriate action.
3. As already noticed, while the petitioner is asserting
that there is unauthorised construction and is drawing support
from the Corporation, the 4th respondent is denying that
statement. Since this is a disputed question, I do not think it
proper for this court to venture into an appreciation of the
disputed findings of the Advocate Commissioner and to conclude
on the issue one way or the other. Since rival allegations are
made by the parties and in view of the limits of this court in a
proceeding of this nature, I feel that what is appropriate is to
direct the Corporation to conduct an inspection of the site in
question and ascertain as to whether there is any unauthorised
construction by the 4th respondent. This necessarily shall be
with notice to both the petitioner and the 4th respondent.
4. Accordingly, I direct that the Secretary of the
respondent Corporation shall cause an inspection of the
premises of the petitioner and the 4th respondent conducted and
ascertain whether there is any unauthorised construction made
by the 4th respondent. This shall be done with notice to both
WP(C) 30657/2007
3
sides. If it is found that there is any unauthorised construction,
the Secretary of the Corporation shall take appropriate action for
remedying the situation. It is directed that this exercise shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within
eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
5. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before
the 2nd respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
mt/-