IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 13747 of 2003(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AMIR SAHIB, PIYANIVILAKATHU VEEDU, KARAKKAMANDAMPAM, NEMOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, SAYI SADAN, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM(DIED) ADDL. 4. REEJA GOPAL, D/O. LATE SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SRI SADAN, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENT NO. 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.9.2006 IN I.A. 11924 OF 2006. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC,TVM CORPN. FOR R1 DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH FOR ADDL.R4 R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1162 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX (OP 13747 OF 2003) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CONFIRMATION ORDER VIDE NO. T.P. 2N2/3204/01 DATED 16.4.2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER VIDE NO. 2N2/3204/01 DATED 14.5.2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO DEMOLISH AND REMOVE THE CHICKEN MEAT STALL WITHIN 24 HOURS. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.RT. NO. 1333/2003/HOME/LSGD DATED 5.4.2003 ISSUED BY V.P.EMMA, DEPUTY ;SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 13747/2003 & W.P.C. NO. 1162 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT These two connected cases are filed, one by the owner of the shed constructed by him (OP 13747 of 2003) and the other by the neighbour, (WPC 1162 of 2006) who complained against unauthorised construction and sought demolition of the same by government authorities. In Ext.P3 produced in WPC 1162 of 2006, the Trivandrum Corporation found that besides three shop rooms bearing Nos. TC 53/40, 53/41 and 53/42, third respondent in that WP, has constructed the unauthorised shed with a length of 9.75 metres and width varying from 2.25 metres to 4.75 metres along with the said building, and was carrying on poultry business in that shed. On complaint by the petitioner in that WPC the Corporation conducted enquiry and ordered demolition of the unauthorised construction causing inconvenience to the complainant. The matter came up before this Court on several occasions and pursuant to last judgment of this Court Government 2 issued Ext.P9 order wherein the Government held that shed constructed is found to be unauthorised in the enquiry conducted by Senior Town Planner (Vigilance) and consequently government ordered demolition. Counsel appearing for the third respondent in WPC 1162 of 2006 , who is the petitioner in OP 13747 of 2003, contended that the shed was there when the area was under the Nemam Panchayat and only in 2001 the Panchayat area came under the Corporation. According to him, no construction was made after 2001 and so much so, it cannot be said to be unauthorised construction. Admittedly, petitioner in O.P.No.13747 of 2003 has only three cents of land wherein he has already three shop rooms which are numbered by the Corporation. Petitioner has no other land is evident from the fact that the socalled shed is having varying width from 2.25 metres to 4.75 metres. I do not think there is any scope for enquiry by this Court on the factual position as to whether the shed constructed is unauthorised or not because Senior Town Planner (Vigilance) of the Trivandrum Corporation on inspection found tat the shed is unauthorised construction causing inconvenience to the public and to the petitioner in WPC 1162 of 2006. Petitioner has not obtained 3 any number from the Panchayat for this shed, even though he stated that the shed was in existence when the area was under the Panchayat. Obviously this is an unauthorised construction because in three cents petitioner has constructed three shop rooms which are numbered and maintained by the petitioner. Petitioner in OP 13747 of 2003 has encroached outside area and constructed the shed and the same is clear from the finding of the Corporation and the Government. Accordingly OP 13747 of 2003 is dismissed and WPC 1162 of 2006 is allowed directing the petitioner to demolish the shed by himself and if the petitioner does not demolish the same, the Corporation will demolish the same. I make it clear that demolition should be done only in respect of the shed and not the three shop rooms maintained by the petitioner in OP 13747 of 2003. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4