IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15422 of 2007(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- AMMUKUTTY VARGHESE, T.C.5/467, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, COCHIN UNIT, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMBILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC, KSHB, TVM FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.15422/2007 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 24.09.2007. EXT. P2 : COPY OF the OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DT.21.12.2006 EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER DT. 8.2.2007. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF the 2ND RESPONDENT No.1551/A2/2007/HSG DT. 3.4.2007. EXT. P5 IN : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT I.A.16288/07 DT. 3.4.2007. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 19.10.1992 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE REGIONAL ENGINEER. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN ON 01.12.1997 IN FAVOUR OF the PETITIONER. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, DT. 11.09.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15422 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter to the 1st respondent. In this writ petition, she has two grievances. One is about the dispute regarding the boundary. According to the 1st respondent the area has been measured thrice and the boundary has been fixed. In view of this, it would not be possible for this Court to resolve the controversy in this proceedings. Taking into account the said position, that dispute is left open to be raised and adjudication before the appropriate authority. 2. Now what remains is the grievance of the petitioner regarding non-consideration of her request for One Time Settlement Scheme. According to the 1st respondent, there is no One Time Settlement Scheme now in vogue. 3. However, having regard to the fact that essential dispute between the parties is regarding the quantification of the amount that is due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent, it is ordered that it will be open to the petitioner to appear before the Regional WP(C) No.15422/2007 -2- Engineer of the 1st respondent at Ernakulam, in which case the said Officer shall quantify the amount due from the petitioner, and on that basis, the petitioner will discharge the liability that is found to be due. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg