IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 2765 of 2008(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PHILOMINA, AGED 69, W/O. VALLULLI PAUL, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. VASU @ VASUDEVAN, S/O. THAYYIL KUMARAN, KUDANNUR VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO SRI.M.R.DHANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 2765/2008(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.S.A.149/2006 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P2: COPY OF THE RESPECTIVE PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, A COPY OF WHICH IS PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 20/11/2007. P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 21/11/2007. P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29/12/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 2765 of 2008-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the alleged rejection of the complaint of the petitioner with regard to the construction made by the second respondent in the adjoining property, this writ petition has been filed. There was a civil dispute between the parties and according to the petitioner, the construction of the building by protruding into the property of the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the judgment in R.S.A.No.149/2006 wherein the Second Appeal was dismissed against the petitioner. A reading of the judgment shows that the various contentions have been repelled and this Court found that the case of trespass is not proved. 2. The Secretary of the Corporation has filed a counter affidavit. Various details with regard to the civil disputes have been stated therein. Therein, the contention appears to be that all the details regarding plan, etc. have been verified and after conclusion of the civil dispute between the parties, an application has been filed by the second respondent which was taken into consideration. The Taluk Surveyor demarcated the land as directed by the Corporation surveyor and the document pertaining to that WPC 2765/2008 2 was produced by the second respondent. The T.P.O. recommended on 16.3.2007 for regularising the construction, in the light of the judgments of the Additional Munsiff Court dated 17.1.2002 and the District Court dated 29.1.2002. In para 9 it is stated that it will be still open to the petitioner to submit proper documents supporting her allegations regarding the boundary disputes. If the petitioner can produce sufficient legal documents, then only this matter can be considered by the Corporation. It is further stated that it is impossible to take any action on the complaint made by the petitioner without substantiating her allegation through documents. 3. Going by the averments in the counter affidavit it is seen that the building construction has been regularized by the Corporation on the basis of the documents and details produced by the second respondent. Therefore, the allegation raised by the petitioner is unsubstantiated. As expressed in para 9 of the counter affidavit of the Corporation, it is still open to the petitioner to substantiate her allegation by producing necessary documents, if any. Leaving open the said course for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) WPC 2765/2008 3 kav/