IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 25889 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.G. ANNIE, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O IGNETIOUS LUKOSE, C.C. 35/2076, ANNIETHOTTAM, SOUTH PIPE LANE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI - 682 025. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 2. CORPORATION OF COHIN, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM. 4. C.K. PETER, COUNCILOR, DIVISION NO. 56, CHIRAMMEL (H),. THEVARA P.O., COCHIN 682 013. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA, ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,COCHIN COPN FOR R2 & 3 SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25889 of 2008(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM DATED 05/10/1977 BEARING NO.7100/77. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO. 4304/76. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED DATED 28.5.1993 BEARING NO. 2385 OF 1993. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.794/93 AND 845/93 OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFFS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED28/2/2003. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.190/03 AND 191/03 OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT COURT ERNAKULAM DATED 06/02/08. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/08/2008. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30/07/08. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 05/08/08. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.25889 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed this writ petition complaining that the Corporation is encroaching into the property belonging to him covered by Ext.P1 patta and seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus and command the respondents 2 to 4 not to do any activities in the property of the petitioner, otherwise than in accordance with law. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 to 4 to remove the waste materials and debris dumped in to the property of the petitioner.” The Secretary of the Corporation has filed a counter affidavit in paragraph 3 of which it is stated thus: “3. It is submitted that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable either on law or on facts. The allegations raised in the Writ Petition are contrary to the fact of the case. The property which is now in question, is a Tsunami affected area. In order to protect the banks of kayal, the Corporation Council has decided to construct a retaining wall in that area and which was approved by the Corporation Council. The Corporation has started construction of retaining wall at Konthuruthy Ferry, which is the disputed land. The allegation that the respondents encroached the property of the petitioner, is false and hence denied. The Corporation has no intention to encroach the petitioner's property as alleged in the Writ Petition. During the construction time, either the petitioner nor any of the neighbouring persons of the disputed property, never objected. It is submitted that there is absolutely no reclamation of kayal area lying to the eastern side of the property of the petitioner by the Corporation. The construction and protection of retaining wall is absolutely necessary, since the rear side of the kayal W.P(C)No.25889 of 2008 - 2 - is declared water transport way through which barges to an fro from Cochin refinery, fishing boats, private boats etc are conducting regular service and this water transport way is connecting Chitrapuzha and Cochin port. It is further submitted that a project of water supply scheme of HUDCO is also lying through the disputed area.” In view of the said categoric averment in the counter affidavit that the Corporation has no intention to encroach into the petitioner's property as alleged in the writ petition, the petitioner submits that the above statement in the counter affidavit may be recorded and the writ petition may be closed. Ordered accordingly. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs