IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9420 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.JOY @ MARY DAS, S/O.LATE GABRIEL, THERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA), KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA,GREATER COCHIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).9420/2009 ....................... Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner possessed a land having an extent of 25 ¾ cents in Survey No. 129/1-2 of Poonithura Village near the Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium at Kaloor. 20 cents out of the same was acquired by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, GCDA. According to the petitioner, the balance extent of land possessed by him and his brother is only 5 ¾ cents. The GCDA handed over another 18 cents of land to the petitioner, which according to the GCDA is of equal value. 2. Petitioner's family is residing in the area and they are conducting a restaurant in the building, situated in the residuary extent of 5.75 cents. It seems that the GCDA proceeded to construct a 'Compound Wall' in the property acquired by them and this according to the petitioner, had deprived him of the access to the road outside the Stadium. According to the GCDA, as pointed out by them in the counter affidavit filed, after acquisition of 20 cents of land, GCDA had provided an additional road having a width of 1.8 meters on the western side leading to Sabarmathy road. W.P.(C).9420/2009 2 This is for the use of the public as such and the petitioner also has a right to use the said road. It seems that the petitioner requires direct access to another public road near the Stadium. This the GCDA is not willing to provide, and the same is the subject matter of the dispute in this writ petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the GCDA refuting the stand taken by the petitioner. 4. I heard learned counsel on both sides. The dispute between the parties obviously cannot be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to a direct access to the public road leading to the GCDA stadium, as sought for by the petitioner, is a matter which could be resolved only after evidence is adduced. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs