IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34724 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. T.A.JOSEPH, THOTTUKANTHARA HOUSE, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20. 2. T.A.VARGHESE, THOTTUKANTHARA HOUSE, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.SANKARAN SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN-682 020. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COCHIN-682 020. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SC,GCDA FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34724/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P7 and to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in Exts.P5 and P6. 2. From the facts as stated, it would appear that the petitioner's father had a Kudikidappu right over a plot of land having an extent of 0.121 hectors which was acquired by the GCDA, for the Kadavanthra West Town Planning scheme invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. As part of the scheme framed for rehabilitation of the evictees, an evictee was eligible for 3 cents of land. In 1996 his wife asked for 3 cents of land and that was allowed immediately thereafter. Thereupon she was called upon to produce succession certificate. Instead of producing the 2 succession certificate, she laid claim for 4 cents of land which was rejected by the GCDA. However by Ext.R1(g) dated 8.10.1998, the GCDA allotted one cent of land for a value of Rs.50,000/- to be paid in installments. This offer was declined by the widow and she demanded 3 cents of land. Meanwhile, she raised another claim for 2.2. cents and according to the GCDA by its proceedings dated 20.4.2006, that was also allowed for a value of Rs.50,000/-. This offer was accepted by the widow and thereafter by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds, the plots having an extent of 3 cents and 2.2 cents were registered in the name of the petitioners. It is stated that the dues for the acquisition of land were adjusted towards the sale consideration due under the aforesaid documents. While the matters stood thus, the petitioners encroached into another 3 cents of land belonging to the GCDA and reduced into their possession. When this came to the knowledge of the GCDA they issued Ext.P7 requiring the petitioners to vacate from the land and informing that on their failure steps will be taken for evicting them. It is this notice which is under challenge in this writ 3 petition. 3. A reading of the writ petition itself shows that in paragraph `7' of the writ petition petitioners state that in anticipation of the favourable orders from the GCDA they had leveled and filled up the aforesaid land and make it marketable and habitable. Therefore, evidently even going by the pleadings in the writ petition itself, the land in respect of which claims are made, is one, on which the petitioners have no title. On the other hand the GCDA has title on the land and it is on that basis GCDA have issued Ext.P7. Admittedly since the land is a trespassed one, GCDA is entitled to take action for its recovery and in the event of refusal to vacate from the same, they are equally competent to take steps for forcefully evicting the petitioners. I see no irregularity in Ext.P7 warranting interference of this court. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 4