IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3357 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- MRS. SINDU DINESH, W/O P.K.DINESH, PUNNAKKAL HOUSE, THURUAVOOR P.O., KUTHIATHODE VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST. NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.23 (HIG 23), PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT: --------------- GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B.NO.2012, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI 682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SC,GCDA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 3357 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P3 and P5 and to direct the respondent to transfer 5.136 cents of land along with House No.23(HIG, building No.23), originally allotted to one Sri.R.K.Menon and P.Usha Devi, to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner claims that the original allottees of the land had transferred the land and the building to the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement for sale and that she is in possession of the land and building. It is stated that following the default that was committed by the allottee, eviction proceedings were initiated at the instance of the 1st respondent. Ext.P3 is the reply to Ext.P2 request of the petitioner, stating that the petitioner is only a trespasser and therefore the request, to drop the proceedings initiated by receiving the balance amount from the petitioner, cannot be accepted. It appears that proceedings were continued under the provisions of The Kerala Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 and finally Ext.P5 order has been issued. It is at that stage, this Writ Petition has been filed WPC No. 3357 of 2008 2 seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P5. 3. In so far as Ext.P5 notice which was issued under the provisions of The Kerala Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner that even if she is a trespasser in the premises, she is entitled to be issued notice under Section 4 of the Act. This contention of the petitioner is strongly refuted by the respondents, contending that in terms of the provisions of the said Act, notice has been served by affixture and that it is in response to that notice, the petitioner approached the respondents by filing Ext.P2 representation. According to the respondents, they have recognized only the original allottee and they have no privity of contract with the petitioner. 4. Having considered the submissions made by counsel on both sides and the facts of the case, the petitioner’s objections to Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. If at all, the petitioner was aggrieved by the proceedings initiated, when the notice was affixed on the building occupied by the petitioner. The petitioner could have filed WPC No. 3357 of 2008 3 objections to the proceedings and resisted the order. On the other hand, the petitioner although knew very well about the notice and proceedings, decided not to participate in the adjudication conducted by the estate officer and after inviting the final order, she is now raising objections. 5. These objections, now raised, are lack of bonafidies and I am not in a position to accept the objections raised by the petitioner. Even otherwise, I feel that if the petitioner is now aggrieved, the statute itself provides for an appellate remedy and it is for the petitioner to pursue those remedies. 6. The other relief sought for is to direct the respondents to transfer the land and building allotted to the original allottee to the petitioner on her remitting the outstandings to the respondents. As can be seen from the pleadings the original allottee had no authority to transfer the property, at any rate the petitioner is a stranger in so far the respondents are concerned. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in ordering the respondents to accept the payment from a stranger like the WPC No. 3357 of 2008 4 petitioner and enter into a contract with the petitioner. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE btt WPC No. 3357 of 2008 5