IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29297 of 2006(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.R.JAGADEESH, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNA RAO, WOODLANDS ICE 'N' CREAM, WOODLANDS JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.NARENDRA KUMAR, SMT.LEENA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNEMNT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. 4. P.R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNA RAO, WOODLANDS JEWELLERY, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. B.SANKAR, S/O.P.R.BALAKRISHNAN, WOODLANDS JEWELLERY, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MANU V, R2 & R3 BY MR. K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN., R4 BY ADV. MR.G.S.REGHUNATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.29297/2006-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE BUILDING IN WHICH UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/07/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 26/09/2006 TO THE R.4. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE R.3. DTD. NIL. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. MOP1/18778/06 DTD. 20/07/2006 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ATTACHED TO R.2. TO THE R.4. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/10/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PLAN OBTAINED FROM R.2. BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PIO/25550/06 DTD. 16/10/2006 ISSUED THE OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 01/11/2006 FILED BEFORE THE R.2. BY THE PETITIONER POINTING OUT HIS REASONS FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGULARIZATION. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 20/01/2004. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/10/2005 IN O.S. NO. 591/2002 IN THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WORKERS DOING THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS TAKEN ON 11/12/2006. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE R.4. EXTS.P.15 & P.16: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 18/09/2007 AND 15/11/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2788/2000. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULARISATION FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 29/12/2000. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER. W.P.(C). NO.29297/2006-K: EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 13/11/2001. EXT.R4.F: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE. EXT.R4.G: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.R4.H: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.R4.I: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION. EXT.R4.J: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 023821 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.29297 OF 2006 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT The fifth respondent is the son of the fourth respondent. The petitioner and fourth respondent are brothers. The contributions made by their father and his brother for the growth of the city that is now called Kochi, as contributing stalwarts in the field of hotels and hospitalities should necessarily prompt these brothers to find peace rather than carry on further with this dispute. 2. The petitioner and fourth respondent are co-owners of 4.800 cents, a small parcel going by extent, but a large chunk in terms of value. There is a composite building in that land. The brothers are fighting over the nature of the constructions. Such a litigation would never enure to the benefit of the family, the offsprings or the future generations of either the petitioner or the fourth respondent. 3. Yet when I look into the matter in had, this essentially is one relatable to a plea for regularisation of a construction in Wpc 29297/2006 2 terms of the regularisation rules. The said matter is one for the statutory authorities to consider. Hence, without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is ordered directing that Ext.R4(b) shall be take up, considered and disposed of by the competent among the respondents 1 to 3 and a decision rendered within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 of being heard. 4. I am sure that six month's time is not necessary for the official respondents to decide on a regularisation application. That period is essentially fixed for the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 to regularise their process of thinking by prompting themselves with love, tolerance and reconciliation, leading to a happy end to this controversy. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/15/7