IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1936 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ANITHA PATWARI, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.S.K.PATWARI, GULAB VATTIKA, HOUSE NO.43/2094F, S.R.M.ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI-682012, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. GULAB DEVI JAIN, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.S.L.JAIN, GULAB VATTIKA, HOUSE NO.43/2094F, S.R.M.ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI-682012, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-682011, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-682011, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 1936 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners have jointly purchased 4.330 cents of land in Sy.No.34/16 of Ernakulam Village. After obtaining Ext.P2 building permit, they effected construction in the aforesaid property. Subsequently, the petitioners were issued with Ext.P5 order dated 25.5.2010 requiring them to demolish certain portion of the construction specifically mentioned thereunder. The contention of the petitioners is that subsequent to the receipt of Ext.P5, they had demolished the unauthorised construction referred to thereunder as item No.1. With respect to the unauthorised construction described as item No.2 in Ext.P5, the petitioners have demolished the construction to the possible extent pending this Writ Petition, it is submitted. The remaining construction, if at all it is unauthorised, is too trivial and taking note of the trivial nature of the same, it is well within the power of the respondents to regularise the said construction. I am of the view that, that question need not be considered in W.P.(C) NO.1936/2011 2 this Writ Petition at this stage. Taking into account the triviality of the construction described as unauthorised, it is well within its power of the respondents to regularise the same, it is contended. I am of the view that it is a matter to be decided at the first instance by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners apprehend coercive steps from the part of the respondents. Taking into account all these circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:- Permission is granted to the petitioners to approach the competent authorities to look into the question of regularisation of the construction taking note of the demolition effected by the petitioners pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P5. In case the petitioners submit a petition before the competent authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the respondents expeditiously and in accordance with law. No coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents including demolition of construction till the disposal of such a petition, in case such a petition is filed within the above stipulated time. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.1936/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.1936/2011 4