IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 2879 of 2009 ---------------- ----------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11715/2006 Dated 20/01/2009 & ORDER IN RP 629/2009 DATED 19.8.2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNER, KOLLAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. SIVARAMAN, SUDHALAYAM, SNEHA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.32, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM. 2. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOLLAM CORPORATION. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2879 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. This writ appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th January, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.11715 of 2006 quashing the order against the first respondent/writ petitioner for demolition of the building constructed by him. It is the finding of the learned Single Judge that the building was constructed by the first respondent according to the building plan approved by the 4th respondent Corporation. 2. The allegation of the State is with regard to the violation of Zoning Regulations. However, it is seen from the records and the finding of learned Single Judge that the Chief Town Planner also has supported the case of the first respondent that the construction is in accordance with the building plan approved. Even though the learned Government Pleader submitted that sufficient W.A. No2879 of 2009 . - 2 - clearance is not left for widening of the road, at this stage, in our view, the remedy available is to proceed with acquisition of the land or even the constructed building or part thereof on payment of compensation and construct the road, if required. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal filed by the State is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge vns