IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15716 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.I.DENNIS, S/O.LATE ITTIACHAN, AGED 50, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR-17. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.V.LONACHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.15716 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the managing partner of a firm running a business by the side of the M.G. Road, Ernakulam, in the name and style of M/s.Varkeys Bakery and Supermarket. He has approached this Court with this writ petition at a time when the respondents tried to demolish a portion of the front portion of their shop rooms facing M.G.Road, on the allegation that the construction is encroaching into Government land. The petitioner's grievance was that even though the petitioner sought for some time to enable him to remove the articles from the shop room to another suitable place, the same was not granted by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(1) Issue a Writ of mandamus or such other writ direction directing the Respondents to stop the demolition of the leased out portion taken on lease by the Petitioner as per Exhibit P1 and allow 15 days time to the petitioner to remove the commodities and articles, equipments. (2) To issue a writ or order or direction that the act done by the Respondents is illegal and direct them to give adequate compensation to the Petitioner.” By interim order dated 24.5.2007 I directed the respondents to grant the petitioner 10 days' time to remove his articles from the property in question. The demolition is already over. The petitioner's grievance is that the demolition was illegal. Now the remedy open to w.p.c.15716/07 2 the petitioner is to file a suit for damages, if the demolition was in fact illegal. That is a matter which the petitioner has to prove by adducing evidence in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, without prejudice to such right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge