IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 905 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ EVEREST C.J., CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 'SMART AVENUE', SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 020. 2. THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA), KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 020. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, GCDA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.905 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T A portion of the petitioner's property is stated to have been acquired for the purpose of the Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium along with properties of the others. According to the petitioner, at that time, the GCDA had promised them access to the road which encircles the stadium. That was not given and the requests made were also not considered. On the other hand by Ext.P4, petitioner was called upon to produce the documents in support of his claim that there was a promise made by the GCDA in this behalf. Ext.P4 was challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) No.16618/2010 and the writ petition was disposed of Ext.P5 judgment, declining to interfere with Ext.P4 and leaving it open to the petitioner to prove his case before the GCDA itself. Accordingly petitioner submitted Ext.P5 (a) representation which has now been rejected by Ext.P7. It is challenging Ext.P7, this writ petition is filed. 2. While the petitioner admits that there is no document issued by the GCDA containing the alleged promise to provide access to the road, petitioners seeks to W.P (C) No. 905 of 2011 2 strengthen his case by contending that access was given to certain other persons whose land was also acquired by the GCDA. This contention of the petitioner is sought to be contradicted by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that in one case having regard to the free surrender of land, the GCDA itself had agreed to provide access. The other case pointed out by the petitioner is also explained by the standing counsel, which shows that there is no factual comparison with the case of the petitioner. Although the petitioner disputes the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the GCDA, in the nature of disputes that are raised unless the factual questions are established, petitioner cannot get relief from this Court. Such an adjudication cannot be undertaken in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, leaving it open to the petitioner to proceed in appropriate proceedings, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No. 905 of 2011 3