Partly allowed

Zakkeer Hussain v. the Kollam Corporation

Kerala HC9 Feb 2012WP(C)/2079/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claimed eviction from licensed shop rooms without rehabilitation in reconstructing the Kollam Market building. The Court held factual disputes enforcible in Civil Court and directed the Corporation to consider the first petitioner's claim immediately and others within one month after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Corporation to allot shop room to 1st petitioner immediately; consider other petitioners' representations via council meeting with hearing within one month.

Zakkeer Hussain Vs the Kollam Corporation — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/20TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 2079 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ZAKKEER HUSSAIN

¶8

ATTUKAL PURAYIDAM, KAUMUDI NAGAR, KOLLAM-691001.

¶9

2. M.A.R.NOUSHAD

¶10

ANSHAR MANZIL, DEPO PURAYIDOM, PALLITHOTTAM KOLLAM-691001.

¶11

3. V.P.SASIDHARAN

¶12

41-SREENAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM-691008.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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

¶16

1. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM-691001.

¶18

2. THE SECRETARY

¶19

THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM-691001.

¶20

R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

...2/-

¶24

WP(C).No. 2079 of 2012 (H)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶27

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT OP NO. 135 OF 2007 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM.

¶28

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON RECEIPT OF THE APPICATION FOR NLC FROM THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 30-9-2010 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN AND RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE PAID ON 30-9-2007 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30-12-2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MAYOR.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶37

W.P.(c) No. 2079 OF 2012-H

¶38

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The petitioners 1 to 3 claim that they were licencees of Shop Rooms bearing Nos.15, 32 and 33 respectively, in the old building situated in Kadappakkada Market owned by the 1^st respondent Corporation. That they were evicted when the Municipality started reconstruction of the Market Building, on the basis of an assurance that they will be rehabilitated in the new building constructed. It is also stated that the petitioners were provided with temporary arrangements to conduct business outside the Market in Bunk Shops, except for shop No.15. Even with respect to the 1^st petitioner who was occupying Room No.15, the 1^st respondent had collected rent for the entire period, inspite of the eviction. The petitioners have produced Exts.P1 to P3 to show that they were in occupation of the Shop Rooms in the old building and to show that they were provided with temporary arrangements. When construction of the new

¶41

W.P.(c) No. 2079/2012 -2-

¶42

building was completed, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the Mayor of the 1^st respondent requesting to provide them shop rooms in the new building. Since such request was not considered and no rooms were alloted, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate direction.

¶43

In the statement the respondents it is mentioned that, allotment of rooms to persons who were not occupying permanent rooms in the old Market Building and to hose who were only conducting business in temporary structures in the old market complex, is not possible. According to the respondents, the 1^st petitioner alone was occupying a room under licence issued by the 1^st respondent Corporation. But the other petitioners are only temporary stall holders, who were conducting business under licences renewed from time to time. According to respondents there were only 17 rooms facing in the Market in the old building, but the said rooms were occupied by 14 persons. Out of the 14 licencees some of them were holding more than one licence. After

¶44

W.P.(c) No. 2079/2012 -3-

¶45

the renovation of the building, all the 14 persons were given one room each in the newly reconstructed building. The statement is to that effect that the 1^st petitioner will be given shop room in the new building on priority basis, whereas the other petitioners are not eligible.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioners 2 and 3 were also occupying shop rooms in the old building, which fact is evident from Ext.P1 caveat filed by the respondent Municipality before the Sub Court. It is also contended that the petitioners 2 and 3 were occupying shop rooms in the old market building itself.

¶47

Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that disputed fact cannot be resolved in this writ petition. Even if it is assumed that there was an undertaking made by the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners, such undertaking cannot be enforced through this writ petition, when the parties are at dispute regarding the terms and conditions of such undertaking, and when the petiioners are not in a position to prove such terms and conditions through

¶48

W.P.(c) No. 2079/2012 -4-

¶49

any convincing materials. However, in view of the contentions on both sides, I am of the view that consideration of the matter by the Council of the 1^st respondent Corporation on the basis of Ext.P5 representation with an opportunity afforded to the petitioners will suffice to meet the ends of justice.

¶50

Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to take effective steps to provide shop room to the 1^st petitioner in the newly constructed building, as conceded in the statement, at the earliest possible.

¶51

With respect to allotment of rooms to the other petitioners, the 1^st respondent Corporation will consider their representation (Ext.P5) in the council meeting, with due notice issued to them and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to them. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

W.P.(c) No. 2079/2012

¶53

-5-

¶54

Needless to say that if the petitioners 2 and 3 are aggrieved by such decision, they will be at liberty to pursue the matter further before any competent authority under

¶55

law.

¶56

Sd/- JUDGE.

¶57

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,

¶58

AMG

¶59

True copy

¶60

P.A to Judge

Zakkeer Hussain v. the Kollam Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakkeer Hussain v. the Kollam Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mridula Vs Nayarambalam Grama Panchayath

Ummed Bhandari Vs Corporation of Cochin

Biju Panjikkaran L. Vs Cherthala Municipality

Sethudevadasan Vs State of Kerala

Saraswathy.L Vs the District Collector,Kollam

Rahana Vs Kuzhoor Grama Panchayath