S.T.Padmaja Kumari vs The Corporation Of … on 11 February, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23150 of 2007(E)


1. S.T.PADMAJA KUMARI, T.C.54/2109,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SULOCHANA DEVI, T.C. 54/2109,

                        Vs



1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. VIKRAMAN NAIR, AMITH BHAVAN,

3. VIJAYA KUMARI AMMA, W/O.VIKRAMAN NAIR,

4. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.FIROZ

                For Respondent  :SMT.J.V.ANIJA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :11/02/2008

 O R D E R
                             PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.

                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                        W.P.(c).No.23150 OF 2007

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                 Dated this the 11th  day of February, 2008



                                  JUDGMENT

Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P2 order of the

Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions confirming the

order passed by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram directing

the petitioners to produce the consent letter from respondents 2

and 3, who are neighbouring owners. The learned counsel for the

petitioner Sri.Firoz.K.M. is right in submitting that the order of the

Tribunal is a non-speaking one. According to him, the Tribunal

should have remanded the matter back to the Corporation so as

to offer opportunity to the petitioners for adducing evidence

regarding the age of the building put up by them.

2. I have examined Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal passed on

the appeal preferred by the petitioners. There is nothing in Ext.P2

to indicate that prayer for remand was made before the Tribunal,

though it is seen that there was a prayer for remand in the appeal

memorandum which was submitted before the Tribunal. The

Tribunal has examined the issue on the basis of the evidence

WPC.No.23150/07 2

which was available and the findings of the Tribunal cannot be

said to be faulty. As rightly noticed by the Tribunal that the

existing building does not leave the required open space adjacent

to the boundary separating the properties of the appellants ( the

petitioners) and that of respondent 2 and 3 was not disputed

before the Tribunal by either of the sides. The only dispute

before the Tribunal was the point of time when the petitioners

constructed the building. The Tribunal has perused R1 file and

has given excellent reasons for its finding that the constructions

were made only subsequent to 07/05/2004. That finding in my

opinion cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner.

The result of the above discussions is that there is no

warrant for interfering with Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal.

Challenge against Ext.P2 fails. Writ Petition will stand dismissed.

However, there will be a direction to the Corporation not to

enforce Ext.P1 for a period of two more months from today.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE

JUDGE

sv.

WPC.No.23150/07 2