IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 39381 of 2003(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.A. SALAM, POTHADI HOUSE, MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM, (MILMA BOOTH NO.40/373,NEAR KSRTC BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. 2. K. JANARDHANAN, GCDA APARTMENT, B-11, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA (MILMA BOOTH NO.40/73, NEAR KSRTC BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM) 3. K. ARAVINDAKSHAN, MANEPARAMBIL HOUSE, JUNIOR JANATHA ROAD, PUNNURUNNI, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. (BOOKSTALL, 40/114, NEAR KSRTC BOAT JETTY, ERNAKAULAM) 4. K.P. SALAI, KATTUR VEEDU, NEDUNGADU, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, (C.CLASS, 40/115, NEAR KSRTC BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. 5. Y. KUNJUKUTTY, LINCHU BHAVAN, POOYAPPALLY P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. (C.CLASS, 40/113, NEAR KSRTC BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM.) 6. M.K. GEORGE, MANAPPURATH HOUSE, MARAVANTHURUTHU P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (STD/ISD BOOTH, 40/118, NEAR KSRTC BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. 7. V. U. RAZAK, VALIYA PEEDIAKKAL HOUSE, KALPATHY, (LINE NO.10) FORT COCHIN-1, (C.CLASS, 40/557, NEAR KSRTC BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. 8. A. ABDUL SALAM, MALIAKKAL PADIYATHATHIL, PALLIKKUNNAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA (TEA STALL, 40/111, NEAR KSRTC BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC WP(C).No. 39381 of 2003(L) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. KSRTC BOAT JETTY AND BUS STAND, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 39381 of 2003(L) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MOR 14/5144/2 DATED 6.9.2002. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE LATEST RENT RECEIPT NO.77 DATED 18.11.2003. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF R3 DATED 3.10.2002. EXT.P4 COPY OF ORDER NO.MOP3-1726/95 DATED 2.3.1995. EXT.P5 COPY OF RENT RECEIPT NO.63/27.1.1993. EXT.P6 COPY OF ORDER NO.M.O.R.14/5144/2002 DATED 9.9.2002 GIVEN TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P7 COPY OF RENT RECEIPT NO.48 DATED 10.10.2003. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.MOR 14/5144/2002 DATED 9.9.2002 GIVEN TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P9 COPY OF RENT RECEIPT NO.69 DATED 18.11.03. EXT.P10 COPY OF LICENCE NO.MOR.14/5144/2002 DATED 9.9.2002 GIVEN TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P11 COPY OF RENT RECEIPT NO.83 OF 24.11.2003. EXT.P12 COPY OF LICENCE NO.MOR 14/5144/2002 DATED 9.9.2002 GIVEN TO THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXT.P13 COPY OF RENT RECEIPT NO. 20 OF 18.11.2003. EXT.P14 COPY OF LICENCE NO.MOR 14/5144/2002 DATED 9.9.2002 GIVEN TO THE 7TH PETITIONER. EXT.P15 COPY OF RENT RECEIPT NO.21 OF 18..11.2003. EXT.P16 COPY OF LICENCE NO.MOR 14/5144/2002 DATED 9.9.2002 GIVEN TO THE 8TH PETITIONER. EXT.P17 COPY OF RENT RECEIPT NO.86 DATED 16.8.2003. EXT.P18 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.1.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE MAYOR. EXT.P19 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.1.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF THE R3. EXT.P20 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.1.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R2. EXT.P21 COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN METRO MANORAMA DATED 11.11.2003. EXT.P22 COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.1.94 IN SPL. LEAVE TO APPEAL © 3606/94. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.39381 OF 2003 ............................................. Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners are bunk owners that situated on the northern side of Ernakulam Boat Jetty and KSRTC bus stop. This writ petition has been filed apprehending steps from the part of the respondents without taking any measure for their rehabilitation. According to the petitioners, they have been put in possession of the respective bunks by the 3rd respondent based on lease deeds executed by them and the 3rd respondent Corporation. It is the contention of the petitioners that subsequently they were also issued with licences and the said licences, according to the petitioners, are being renewed from time to time. In short, according to them, they are not illegal encroachers and they have been placed on the sides by the 3rd respondent and therefore, they shall not be dispossessed without putting them on notice and also without taking appropriate steps for their rehabilitation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners W.P.(C).NO.39381 OF 2003 : 2 : and the learned Government Pleader and also the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent Corporation. Taking note of the defect in the address of the 4th respondent, this Court passed an interim order on 17.12.2003. However, no steps have been taken so far pursuant to the order dated 17.12.2003. In fact, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that sole score. However, I do not propose to do so in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition after hearing the rival contentions. 3. As already noticed herein, it was the contention of the petitioners that they have obtained possession of the bunks in question on the strength of the agreements entered into between them and the 3rd respondent Corporation and they have been renewing the licences from time to time. Based on the said contention, the only claim of the petitioners is that they shall not be dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law and also only after taking appropriate steps for their rehabilitation. In this context, it is relevant to note the undertaking given in the statement filed by the 3rd respondent. In the statement filed on behalf of the third W.P.(C).NO.39381 OF 2003 : 3 : respondent, it is stated that, according to the information available to the 3rd respondent, development works will be undertaken and executed in the locality by the Public Works Department. It is further stated therein that the Corporation had not received the details regarding any such proposal. After making such statements, it is further stated that if orders are issued to the said effect the Corporation would initiate steps to remove the bunk shops only in conformity with law i.e., after giving the requisite notice as stipulated under Ext.P1. It appears from the contention raised in this writ petition that there is some confusion with respect to the question as to whether the property in question actually vested with the 3rd respondent. The petitioners instituted this writ petition on seeing a news item in one of the dailies that the property in question actually belongs to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Whether there exists such a dispute and whether the properties in question belong to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation could not be ascertained on account of the failure on the part of the respondents to W.P.(C).NO.39381 OF 2003 : 4 : take proper steps pursuant to the order dated 17.12.2003. Be that as it may, so long as the petitioners are put in possession by the agreements executed between them and the Corporation, at no stretch of imagination they can be described as illegal encroachers. In the circumstances, in view of the undertaking made as per the statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Corporation, the petitioners could not be dispossessed from the respective bunks, in case they are still continuing with the possession based on the licence issued by the Corporation, and they could be dispossessed only after resorting to appropriate steps in accordance with law. It will also be open to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate steps for their rehabilitation and then to take appropriate steps to dispossess the petitioners. In fact the contentions raised in this writ petition would reveal that the petitioners are also limiting their prayer to only for such a direction. However, the petitioners who had not taken steps pursuant to the interim order dated 17.12.2003 cannot be permitted to take its advantage. Therefore, it is made clear that this judgment W.P.(C).NO.39381 OF 2003 : 5 : shall not be binding on the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Subject to the above, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/= C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. cl