Allowed

R Sumathi v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Kerala HC22 Nov 2022WP(C)/25958/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged encroachment and unauthorised construction on her property. Court dispensed notice to respondents 3 and 4 and directed respondents 1 and 2 to conclude initiated proceedings against them within one month under natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to conclude initiated proceedings against respondents 3 and 4 within one month in compliance with natural justice.

R Sumathi Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25958 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

R SUMATHI
AGED 75 YEARS
D/O RUDRAYANI,
KOUSTHUBOM, TC 27/856ATHANI LANE,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.
R.SUNIL KUMAR
A.SALINI LAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033

¶12

3 C.P.ABHILASH, SAMTHRIPTHI, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶13

4 C.P.RUPESH, SAMTHRIPTHI, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶14

BY ADVS.
N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CORPORATION
SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) No.25958 of 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2022

¶20

The petitioner states that she is owner of 17 Ares of property in Survey No.1500A of Kadakampally Village of Thiruvananthapuram District. There are civil disputes over the property, between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. Civil proceedings are pending.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that pending the civil proceedings, respondents 3 and 4 have encroached upon the petitioner’s property and made certain constructions. The petitioner has approached the Public Information Officer, Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, who informed as per Ext.P4 that the construction made by respondents 3 and 4 is without any permit. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P6 complaint to the 2^nd respondent-Secretary to the Municipal Corporation.

¶22

¶23

WP(C) No.25958 of 2022

¶24

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to direct the 2^nd respondent-Secretary to the Corporation to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 representation within two weeks.

¶25

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation has not given permission for any construction in the disputed property. No Building Permit in accordance with law has been granted by respondents 1 and 2 to respondents 3 and 4. The Standing Counsel further submitted that appropriate legal steps have already been initiated by the Corporation against the unauthorised construction and proceedings are in progress.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2. Notice to respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief being granted in the writ petition.

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.25958 of 2022

¶29

As respondents 1 and 2 have initiated proceedings

¶30

pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions.

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to bring the proceedings initiated against respondents 3 and 4 to its logical conclusion in accordance with law and in strict compliance of the principles of natural justice. Final decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of one month. This direction will be subject to statutory challenge if any, made by respondents 3 and 4 to the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 and subject to any orders that may be passed by the competent authorities/Tribunal.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.25958 of 2022

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25958/2022

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NUMBER 1188/73 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
SRO
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE "TAX RECEIPT DATED
1/2/2022
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER REPORT
AND PLAN OS: NO: 194/2009
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER UNDER INFORMATION ACT DATED
24/11/2019
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY
THE RESPONDENT DATED 9/12/2019 FOR
EXHIBIT P-4
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BYTHEPETITIONERBEFORETHE
RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 11/7/2022
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P-6 DATED 12/7/2022

¶40

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS :NIL

R Sumathi v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Sumathi v. Thiruvananthapuram 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

Sebin K. S. Vs the State of Kerala

Najeena Asharaf Vs Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited

The Principal Secretary to Government Vs the Chairman and Managing Trustee

Jalal Das Vs the District Collector

Michael Meenattoor Vs the State of Kerala

Thamban K.P Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority