K.G. Annie vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25889 of 2008(F)


1. K.G. ANNIE, AGED 58 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. CORPORATION OF COHIN,

3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN,

4. C.K. PETER, COUNCILOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,COCHIN COPN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :13/11/2008

 O R D E R
                         S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                  ==================
                   W.P(C)No.25889 of 2008
                  ==================
       Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008.

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner filed this writ petition complaining that the

Corporation is encroaching into the property belonging to him

covered by Ext.P1 patta and seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus and command the
respondents 2 to 4 not to do any activities in the property of
the petitioner, otherwise than in accordance with law.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command
respondents 2 to 4 to remove the waste materials and debris
dumped in to the property of the petitioner.”

The Secretary of the Corporation has filed a counter affidavit in

paragraph 3 of which it is stated thus:

“3. It is submitted that the Writ Petition itself is not
maintainable either on law or on facts. The allegations
raised in the Writ Petition are contrary to the fact of the
case. The property which is now in question, is a Tsunami
affected area. In order to protect the banks of kayal, the
Corporation Council has decided to construct a retaining
wall in that area and which was approved by the
Corporation Council. The Corporation has started
construction of retaining wall at Konthuruthy Ferry, which
is the disputed land. The allegation that the respondents
encroached the property of the petitioner, is false and
hence denied. The Corporation has no intention to
encroach the petitioner’s property as alleged in the Writ
Petition. During the construction time, either the
petitioner nor any of the neighbouring persons of the
disputed property, never objected. It is submitted that
there is absolutely no reclamation of kayal area lying to the
eastern side of the property of the petitioner by the
Corporation. The construction and protection of retaining
wall is absolutely necessary, since the rear side of the kayal

W.P(C)No.25889 of 2008 – 2 –

is declared water transport way through which barges to an
fro from Cochin refinery, fishing boats, private boats etc
are conducting regular service and this water transport way
is connecting Chitrapuzha and Cochin port. It is further
submitted that a project of water supply scheme of HUDCO
is also lying through the disputed area.”

In view of the said categoric averment in the counter affidavit

that the Corporation has no intention to encroach into the

petitioner’s property as alleged in the writ petition, the

petitioner submits that the above statement in the counter

affidavit may be recorded and the writ petition may be closed.

Ordered accordingly.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

rhs