IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30657 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ROBERT FERNANDEZ, TC.4/904, PIPE LINE ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SRI.V.SADASIVAN SRI.K.JITHIN SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION. 4. SYED MOHAMMED KHAN, TC.4/902 & 903, PIPE LINE ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. CHIEF ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (CORRECTED AS THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.07 ON IA 14341/07.) R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R4 SMT.M.HEMALATHA FOR R4 SMT.SHIRMILA. C.S. FOR R4 SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R4 SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R2 (STANDING COUNSEL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 30657 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 24, 2008 JUDGMENT several reliefs are sought for in this writ petition on the basic allegation that in between the petitioner's house (TC 4/904) and the 4th respondent's house (TC 4/902 & 903), there is a canal maintained by the Minor Irrigation Department, the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent covered the canal by putting slabs and has constructed a roof over the same connecting the same with his compound wall and is using that space as a room. This construction, according to the petitioner, is not covered by any building permit and is thus unauthorised. 2. The 4th respondent has sworn to an affidavit contending that he has not made any unauthorised construction. According to him, the allegations to the contrary are all incorrect. But then, the office note of the Corporation produced along with the commission report as Ext.C7 and the counter statement filed by the Corporation suggests otherwise. The Corporation submits WP(C) 30657/2007 2 that if there is any unauthorised construction, they will take appropriate action. 3. As already noticed, while the petitioner is asserting that there is unauthorised construction and is drawing support from the Corporation, the 4th respondent is denying that statement. Since this is a disputed question, I do not think it proper for this court to venture into an appreciation of the disputed findings of the Advocate Commissioner and to conclude on the issue one way or the other. Since rival allegations are made by the parties and in view of the limits of this court in a proceeding of this nature, I feel that what is appropriate is to direct the Corporation to conduct an inspection of the site in question and ascertain as to whether there is any unauthorised construction by the 4th respondent. This necessarily shall be with notice to both the petitioner and the 4th respondent. 4. Accordingly, I direct that the Secretary of the respondent Corporation shall cause an inspection of the premises of the petitioner and the 4th respondent conducted and ascertain whether there is any unauthorised construction made by the 4th respondent. This shall be done with notice to both WP(C) 30657/2007 3 sides. If it is found that there is any unauthorised construction, the Secretary of the Corporation shall take appropriate action for remedying the situation. It is directed that this exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-