IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21124 of 2010(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ THE SECRETARY, KANAMKODE MUSLIM JAMA-ATH PALLY,KANAMKODE, NILAMEL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.N.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, NILAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NILAMEL P.O.,KOTTARAKKARA-691535. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT(KSTP) KOTTARAKKARA. 3. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RAGHAVA MANDIRAM, PANAMKONAM, NILAMEL,KOTTARAKKARA-691535 MR. P.NARAYANAN – GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.21124 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Secretary of a Kanamkode Muslim Jama Ath Pally. They have established a 'Kanikkavanchi' by the side of the M.C. Road. The KSTP, in the process of widening M.C.Road, decided to remove the 'Kanikkavanchi'. According to the petitioner, the petitioner agreed to remove the same and came to an oral agreement with the KSTP in respect thereof as intimated by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer, KSTP, by Ext.P1. The petitioner claims that the second respondent agreed to the same, but later on it was not necessary to remove the 'Kanikkavanchi' and therefore, the 'kanikkavanchi' still remains there. While so, the third respondent filed a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, in which the Kerala Lok Ayukta passed Ext.P6, whereby the Lok Ayukta directed the Executive Engineer to demolish the 'kanikkavanchi'. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: W.P.(c)No.21124/10 2 “i) call for the records relating to Ext.P6 and P7 and quash he same by a writ of certiorari. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate direction directing respondents one and two not to remove the Kanikkavanchi. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any direction directing respondents one and two to shift the Kanikkavanchi to the newly identified placed as per the understanding made, before implementing Ext.P7 notice. iv) Direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders an Ext.P9 before implementing Ext.P7”. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has no case that the 'kanikkavanchi' stands in the property belonging to the petitioner. The 'kanikkavanchi' is put up in Government land. All what the Lok Ayukta has directed is to remove the same for better use of through the M.C. Road. In so far as the 'kanikkavanchi' is established in Government land, the petitioner has no right in respect of the same and as and when the authorities direct them, they are bound to remove the same. Admittedly, they have agreed to remove the same and they have also found out an alternate place for the same. In the above circumstances, there is no merit whatsoever in any of the contentions in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.21124/10 3 W.P.(c)No.21124/10 4