IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22103 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.K.NATARAJAN, S/O.KOCHURAMAN, RESIDING AT PAVAKULATH HOUSE, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 17. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, COCHIN - 11. 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOCHI - 11. 3. SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT PAVAKKULATHU HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. 4. MAYA, D/O.SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT PAVAKKULATHU HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. 5. VEENA, D/O.SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT PAVAKKULATHU HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. 6. SINDHU, D/O.SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT PAVAKKULATHU HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R3 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22103/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7. 2. Ext.P7 is a communication issued by the Town Planning Officer directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction and informing that in case of his failure, the Corporation will be taking action at his risk and costs. 3. The petitioner submits that he is the owner of 6.5 cents of land. According to respondents 3 to 6, who are his brother and neices, they possess 5.137 cents on the western side. There were several disputes between the parties and according to respondents the petitioner had made certain structures encroaching into the property belonging to the respondents. Thereupon, proceedings were 2 initiated and Exts.P2 and P3 orders were issued under Section 406(1) and 406(3) of the Municipality Act respectively. 4. Aggrieved by these orders, petitioner filed a suit before the Munsiff court, Ernakulam as O.S. No.1007/1997. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, petitioner submitted before the court that he had made an application to the Government seeking regularisation of the construction. Acting upon this submission and without going into the merits, the suit was disposed of by directing disposal of the application for regularisation and deferring further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 in the meanwhile. 5. Coming to know of this relief so granted by the Civil Court without them on the party array, respondents 3 to 6 submits that they moved Government for an expeditious decision on the application said to have been filed by the petitioner. According to them, since the matter got delayed 3 they filed writ petition before this court as O.P.No.24397/1999 and obtained Ext.P5 judgment directing Government to take a decision on their representation. 6. It is stated that in pursuance there of, the Government heard the petitioner, respondents 3 to 6 and also the representatives of the Corporation and passed Ext.P6 order. As is seen from Ext.P6, the Government took the view that, since Exts.P2 and P3 orders were issued by the Corporation it is their responsibility to take further necessary action. Proceeding further it is also held that the petitioner has not filed any representation before the Government. It was also directed that the Corporation will proceed further in the matter as per the rules. Contending that, even thereafter, there was no action on the part of the corporation to implement Exts. P2 and P3, respondents 3 to 6 continued to make representations and this resulted in Ext.P7, which is challenged in this writ petition. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 mainly on the ground that his application is still pending before the Government and that it is during its pendency, that acting upon a complaint made by respondents 3 to 6 that Ext.P7 has been issued. As already noticed Exts.P2 and P3 proceedings were initiated by the corporation. These orders have become final and this factual decision is confirmed in Ext.P6. If that be so, Ext.P7 can be taken only as an order consequent to Exts.P2 and P3. On account of finality that Exts.P2 and P3 have attained I do not think that the petitioner can be allowed to Challenge Ext.P7 which is only a consequential order. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 5