IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18003 of 2010(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- J.DEVAKI, CHAITHRAM, THOTTUMUKATHKIZHAKKATHIL, KAIKULANGARA, NORTH WARD NO.47, RAMESWARAM NAGAR, KOLLAM - 12. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 3. G.PADMAKARAN, PADMAVASANTHAM VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA NORTH WARD NO.47, RAMESWARAM NAGAR, KOLLAM. 4. P.VENUGOPAL, MELPILAMKEEZHU, KAIKULANGARA NORTH WARD NO.47, RAMESWARAM NAGAR, KOLLAM. 12. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM CORPN. R3 & R4 BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), SRI.P.SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18003/2010 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DTD. 2/2/2010 ISSUED FROM KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE OFFICE. P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE EASTERN COMPOUND WALL OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. P3: COPY OF THE MINUTES DTD. 5/2/2010. P4: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE RE-LAID DRAINAGE CANAL AND THE TRENCH. P5: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE OBSTRUCTION TO THE WORK. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/05/2010 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT KOLLAM IN I.A.NO.1908/2010 IN O.S.NO.306/2010. P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 3/06/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/11/1993 IN O.S.NO.1247/1990 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A): COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT. R3(B): COPY OF THE CMA 56/10. R3(C): COPY OF THE PHOTOS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 18003 of 2010-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the delay on the part of the first respondent Corporation to complete the construction of a compound wall which was remaining in the property of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a widow aged 78 years. She owns an extent of 8 cents of land in Sy. No.16 in Kollam East Village. There are compound walls on all the four sides of the property. We are concerned with the compound wall which was existing on the eastern side. Previously, a drainage canal was existing, over which the Corporation put up a concrete slab enabling the said portion to be used as a pathway. The Corporation took steps for strengthening the existing drain and for reconstructing the damaged slabs. The work was undertaken under Kerala Sustainable Urban Development Project implemented by the Corporation with the assistance of Asian Development Bank. Therefore, it required dismantling of the compound wall upto a length of 25 meters, for facilitating the reconstruction. Ext.P3 is the minutes drawn showing the agreement between the parties. wpc 18003/02010 2 3. Therefore, as the completion of the work relating to laying of concrete slabs was over, the Corporation was bound to reconstruct the compound wall. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the Corporation was sidetracking the issue. It appears that respondents 3 and 4 had filed a civil suit as O.S. No.306/2010 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam seeking for prohibitory injunction restraining reconstruction of the compound wall. Initially they obtained an interim injunction, which was vacated later as per Ext.P6 order. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that before the compound wall is constructed, they will have to construct the basement and there are some objections on the part of respondents 3 and 4 in the matter. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that Ext.P3 decision can be implemented, as agreed to by all the parties which will satisfy their conditions also. 6. In the above view of the matter, in terms of the decision taken in Ext.P3, the first respondent will complete the construction within a period wpc 18003/02010 3 of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/