Disposed

Kochi Municipal Corporation, v. District Collector

Kerala HC8 Dec 2022WP(C)/5472/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought access to properties blocked by a Metro Rail Over Bridge. The Court observed that lowering the road height involves complex engineering risks. It directed a High-Level meeting of authorities to explore feasibility without adjudicating merits for now.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Executive Engineer, Kochi Corporation, PWD Road Division, Ernakulam to convene a High-Level meeting of City Traffic Police Authorities, KMRL, and PWD officials to explore the feasibility

Kochi Municipal Corporation, Vs District Collector — 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

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 41279 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

1 MRS. SUSAMMA RAJAM AGED 74 YEARS W/O. T.M. RAJAN, XI/139 B, THRIKKARA, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI.

¶8

2 T.M. RAJAN, S/O. V.T. THOMAS, XI/139 B, THRIKKARA, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI.

¶9

BY ADV K.MANOJ CHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS

¶11

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD., REGD. OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶12

2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD., REGD. OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶13

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION, 2ND FLOOR, GCDA EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI – 16.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI – 30.

¶15

5 THE KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE, MUSEUM P.O., 695 001, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, NEAR N.G.O. QUARTERS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 30

¶17

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶18

¶19

7THE KOCHI CORPORATION,
PARK AVENUE, KOCHI
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 682 001.
8
THE SECRETARY,
THE KOCHI CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE,
KOCHI - 682 001.
ADDL.R9 TO 116 IMPLEADED

¶20

ADDL.R9K.V.SATHYAPALAN,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.K. VELAYUDHAN,
APARNA JEWELERS, OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, ERNAKULAM

¶21

ADD.R10JAYAN M.V., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN,
CEEJAY MOTORS, PARAMARA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
ERNAKULAM
ADDL.R11ISMAIL C.P, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O.ABDULLA, MADHURIMA BAKERY
(KULIRMA COOL BAR), PARAMARA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, ERNAKULAM NORTH
ERNAKULAM

¶22

ADDL.R12H.M.HABEEB, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O. A.K.M HUSSAIN,
WESTON HARDWARES, PARAMARA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, ERNAKULAM NORTH
ERNAKULAM

¶23

ADDL.R13KRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. V.KELU, MANAGER, MALABARA PLAZA,
PARAMARA BUILDING, OPPOSITE TOWN HALL,
ERNAKULAM NORTH, ERNAKULAM

¶24

ADDL. R14MOHAN KRISHNAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O. K.V. KRISHNAN, STYLE MATERS
BARBER SHOP, PARAMARA BUILDING,
OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, ERNAKULAM
NORTH, ERNAKULAM

¶25

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶26

¶27

ADDL.R15ABDUL RAHEEM, AGED 39 YERS, S/O. P.B ABOOBACKER,
CONTINENTAL CELLCOM, KARAKKATT BUILDING, BANERJI
ROAD, OPPOSITE TOWN HALL,
ERNAKULAM NORTH, ERNAKULAM

¶28

ADDL.R16ELIAS VEARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS,

¶29

S/O. M.O VARGHESE, MATHA STORES
PARAMA BUILDING, OPPOSITE TOWN HALL,
 ERNAKULAM NORTH,
ERNAKULAM

¶30

ADDL. R9 TO R16 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
7.8.2019 IN I.A.NO.1/2019.

¶31

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR
M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD.
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
K.JANARDHANA SHENOY

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).5472/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶34

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶38

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 5472 OF 2019

¶39

PETITIONER

¶40

KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KOCHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 001.

¶41

BY ADV SC, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶42

RESPONDENTs

¶43

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030.

¶44

2 PRINCIPALSECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶45

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, NEAR NGO QUARTERS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030

¶46

4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI-682 011

¶47

5 PROJECT DIRECTOR, KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED ,REGISTERED OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI-682 011

¶48

6 PROJECT DIRECTOR, DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION, 2ND FLOOR, GCDA, EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI-682 016.

¶49

¶50

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶51

7T.M.RAJAN,
S/O. V.T.THOMAS, IX/139B, THRIKKARKARA, PADAMUGAL,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030.

¶52

8 SUSAMMA RAJAN, W/O. T.M.RAJAN, IX/139B, THRIKKARKARA,PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682 030

¶53

BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD.
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).41279/2018, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶56

¶57

J U D G M E N T

¶58

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2022

¶59

[WP(C) Nos.41279/2018 and 5472/2019]

¶60

WP(C) No.41279/2018 has been filed by the petitioners who

¶61

are owners of immovable properties lying adjacent to the North Railway Station Over Bridge in Ernakulam. According to the petitioners, the right of way to the property of the petitioners have been blocked by the construction of the Over Bridge and its elevated service road starts from Paramara Junction and goes to North Railway Station. There is no access to the properties of the petitioners from the main road.

¶62

The petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.34015 of 2015. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment directed the District Collector to interfere in the matter, convene a meeting, adverting to the report of the Commissioner as well as the report of the Executive Engineer and take appropriate decision thereon. On the basis of the representations made by the petitioners, the District Collector considered the issue. Though Ext.P3 judgment

¶63

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶64

¶65

was challenged by certain shop owners in the area, the Writ Appeal was disposed of directing the District Collector to consider the grievance of the writ petitioners in consultation with other affected parties.

¶66

Subsequently, the District Collector passed Ext.P5 proceedings dated 05.05.2018. The District Collector found that the Officials concerned had unanimously suggested to reduce the gradient of service road from Paramara Junction to North Railway Station to get access to the petitioners’ property. The official respondents have also opined that the existing service road may be lowered in the same level of footpath to resolve the issue. The District Collector accordingly directed the Kochi Corporation to carry out the suggested changes at their cost as it is their property and it is their responsibility to provide access to shops from whom they received property tax, profession tax and licence fee. The petitioners seek implementation of Ext.P5 order.

¶67

Kochi Municipal Corporation, however, filed W.P(C) No.5472 of 2019 aggrieved by the said Ext.P5 order dated 05.05.2018 of the District Collector. The Kochi Municipal

¶68

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶69

¶70

Corporation in their writ petition has taken a stand that if at all a decision is taken to reduce the gradient of service road from Paramara Junction to North Railway Station Road, the work is liable to be entrusted with PWD, to whom the North Railway Over Bridge road belongs. The expenditure cannot be imposed on the Kochi Corporation.

¶71

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. I have also heard the learned counsel for the Kochi Metro Rail Limited and the DMRC Limited.

¶72

At the outset, it is to be stated that the reduction of the height of the service road in question is a matter involving highly technical and engineering issues. A deeper study may be required as reduction of height of the existing service road may affect the very structure of the Over Bridge now constructed. The Executive Engineer of the PWD Roads Division has stated that to reconstruct the footpath/service road in its prior condition, the retaining wall of the service road will have to be demolished and removal of earth at a height of 6 feet would be required to maintain

¶73

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶74

¶75

the old shed. Such removal of earth may adversely affect the strength of the retaining wall and the existence of the main road. This issue can be considered only by a High Level meeting with the City Traffic Police Authorities, KMRL and PWD officials. A detailed scientific inspection will have to be conducted and appropriate design will have to be drawn before the reconstruction of service road at Ernakulam North Over Bridge since this area is an important junction and a crowded place in the city.

¶76

Taking into consideration the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the matter can be best left to the competent authorities, to take a decision.

¶77

The writ petitions are therefore disposed of directing the Executive Engineer, Kochi Corporation, PWD Road Division, Ernakulam to convene a meeting of City Traffic Police Authorities, KMRL and PWD officials and explore the feasibility of reducing the gradients of the existing service road. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated anything on the merits of the issues involved and all questions raised by the petitioners are left open.

¶78

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶79

¶80

The initiative of convening the meeting shall be taken within a

¶81

period of one month.

¶82

Sd/-

¶83

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶84

smm

¶85

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶86

¶87

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41279/2018

¶88

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶89

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO. 3516/1989
DATED 20.11.1989 OF ERNAKULAM SRO IN
REPORT OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO. 4404/1992
DATED 30.10.1992 OF ERNAKULAM SRO IN
RESPECT OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.03.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.34015/2015.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.02.2018 IN W.A. NO. 336/2018.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2018.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
04.06.2018.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R8-1TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 06/12/2018
BEARING NO. MOE3-35991/16 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶90

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶91

¶92

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5472/2019

¶93

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶94

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE` `W.P(C` `KERAL`	`COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2016 IN` `) NO.340145/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF` `A`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE` `THE D` `KOCHI`	`COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.08.2016 OF` `ISTRICT COLLECTOR TO CORPORATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE` `W.P(C` `KERAL`	`COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2018 IN` `) NO.336/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF` `A`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE` `BEARI` `COLLE`	`COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2018` `NG NO.C10-34/16 ISSUED BY DISTRICT` `CTOR TO CORPORATION OF KOCHI`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE` `BEARI` `SECRE` `DISTR`	`COPY OF THE LETTER 06.12.2018` `NG NO.MOE3-35991/16 ISSUED BY THE` `TARY CORPORATION OF KOCHI TO THE` `ICT COLLECTOR`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE` `BY TH` `41279`	`COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED` `E CORPORATION OF KOCHI IN WP(C) NO` `/2016`

¶95

WP(C) No.41279 of 2018 & 5472 of 2019

¶96

Kochi Municipal Corporation, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochi Municipal Corporation, v. District Collector

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

K.S.Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Vaitheeswaran Iyer R Vs Rahesh Kumar.R

M.S.Sobhakumari Vs Sudheer Ismail

Ajit Associates Architectural Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Rajendra Kumar Vs the District Collector

Ajit Associates Architectural Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala