Dismissed

Retnabhai v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/9660/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's challenge against a demolition order regarding a boundary wall. The Court held that regularization requires consent from the neighboring owner and, absent a settlement, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with the observation that seeking consent from the second respondent and applying for regularization before the Corporation remains the petitioner's option.

Retnabhai Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9660 of 2007 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

RETNABHAI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. OF KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING AT KRV BHAVAN, TC NO.11/519, KUNNUMPURAM, PAROTTUKONAM, PATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶11

CORPORATION BUILDING, PALAYAM,

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. SULOCHANA, W/O. SHRI G.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT T.C.11/517, GODHARA HOUSE,

¶14

KUNNUMPURAM, PAROTTUKONAM, PATTOM POST,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI

¶17

SRI. K.SIJU

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).NO.9660/2007

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2006 PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 26/09/2006 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 16/10/2006.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2006 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

K. Vinod Chandran, J

W.P.(C) No.9660 of 2007-Y

¶32

--------------------------------------Dated this the 10th day of November, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

None appears for the petitioner when the matter was taken up for hearing. I have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

¶35

The dispute is with respect to a work area constructed

¶36

by the petitioner on her northern boundary, extending upto the boundary of the 2nd respondent's property. The petitioner contended that there is no such construction made and the petitioner had merely constructed a boundary wall on the boundary existing between the property of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

¶37

There was an application moved before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions by the 2nd respondent, in which directions were issued to the Corporation to take up appropriate action under law. The Corporation had initiated proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994

¶38

WP(C) No.9660 of 2007 - 2 -

¶39

[for brevity “Act of 1994”], which culminated in the order of demolition of a portion of the work area, leaving an open space of 1 metre from the boundary of th e petitioner's property.

¶40

The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Tribunal, which was rejected by Exhibit P4. The Tribunal also found that there is nothing to refute the factual finding made by the Corporation and the direction to demolish a portion of the work area. The Tribunal had also noticed that there could be no regularisation made of the construction of the petitioner unless a consent is issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are sisters-in-law.

¶41

Many a time attempts were made to conciliate. It was also noticed by this Court on 14.02.2008 that there was a demolition order issued against the 2nd respondent also, on a complaint filed by the petitioner. The learned Counsel had also, on the strength of such demolition order, submitted that there is a possibility for settlement of both the issues. This was recorded by this Court vide the aforeorder dated 14.02.2008. Obviously the matter has been kept pending

¶42

WP(C) No.9660 of 2007 - 3 -

¶43

without the issue having been resolved. This Court had also directed the case to be posted before the Adalat; but, without fruitful outcome. In such circumstance, there is nothing further to do than dismiss the writ petition. It is made clear that even now if a consent is obtained from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner could seek regularisation before the 1st respondent.

¶44

The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation.

¶45

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge

¶46

vku/-

¶47

[ true copy ]

Retnabhai v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Retnabhai v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suja John Vs Mohandas

Mohammed Niyas Vs the Income Tax Commissioner

James K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Albin Antony Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others

Mynagapally Grama Panchayat Vs Kerala Lok Ayukta

C.K.Poulose Vs the State of Kerala