BY AD v. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN

BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. SRI.ARUN ANTONY, SC, GCDA W.P.(C) NO.29413 OF 2013 2 K. JANARDHANA SHENOY OTHER PRESENT: SRI RIYAL DEVASSY, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.29413 OF 2013 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.29413 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take necessary action on the Exhibit -P8 complaint submitted by the petitioner. ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the 1st respondent to take stringent actions coordinating with Respondents 2 to 5 against the unauthorised constructions and remove the same with immediate effect. iii) to issue such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.” (SIC)

2. The petitioner purchased 3.88 Ares in Panampilly Nagar which is situated in Survey No.989/8 and 990/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk in the year 2012. The petitioner decided to construct a residential cum commercial complex in the above property and he applied for building permit before the 1st respondent by submitting necessary documents is the submission. The 1st respondent, after perusing the documents and site inspection, granted W.P.(C) NO.29413 OF 2013 4 building permit on 07.02.2013. The petitioner started construction of the building according to the building permit is the submission. Now, the construction of the building is completed. While so, some persons claiming to be under the instructions of the Panampilly residents association tried to put up hoardings in the vacant portion in front of the petitioner's property is the submission. The people of the locality as well as the representatives of the petitioner objected to this illegal act is the further submission. It is stated in the writ petition that they were informed that the residence association has illegally extracted huge amounts from different business concerns for permitting them to erect hoardings and other publicity materials at this place. When enquiries were made, it is submitted that it has come to knowledge that no one has obtained any permission or sanction from the local authorities to construct any permanent or temporary structures. The petitioner has submitted a complaint before the 1st respondent against this unauthorised construction. Even then, there is no action. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and W.P.(C) NO.29413 OF 2013 5 the Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and GCDA.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent. It will be better to extract paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. “The ground urged by the petitioner are untenable and baseless and hence denied by this respondent. The space provided in front of the petitioner's plot is not an authorised parking space as the area is specifically earmarked as green strip between the 7 meter wide service road and the Panampilly Nagar main avenue. The construction work around the green strip provided is not an illegal construction as it is undertaken to protect the said area from trespassing and encroachment. Hence, the allegations raised by the petitioner that this respondent has acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner is false and baseless as this respondent has only acted in a fair, reasonable manner and within authority and the contours of law.” From the above, it is clear that the space provided in front of the petitioner's plot is not an authorised parking space as the area is specifically earmarked as green strip between 7 meter wide service road and the Panampilly Nagar main avenue. The construction work around the green strip provided is not an illegal construction is the submission of the 4th respondent. If that is the case, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition. But, the counsel for the W.P.(C) NO.29413 OF 2013 6 petitioner submitted that there is illegal parking in front of the petitioner's building. If that is the case, the petitioner can approach the 2nd respondent or the competent authority with an appropriate application. If such a representation is received, the 2nd respondent or the competent authority will consider the same and take appropriate steps with notice to the petitioner expeditiously. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE W.P.(C) NO.29413 OF 2013 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29413/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, DT.5-10-2012. TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DT.5-10-2012. TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.KRP1-24/COC/KRP/18/2013 DT.7-2-2012 ISSUED BY R1. TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DT.5-10-2012 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH IS UNDATED SHOWING THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH IS UNDATED SHOWING THE PARKING OF THE VEHICLES ENTERING PANAMPILLY ROAD. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH IS UNDATED SHOWING FOUR LANE ROAD OF THE PANAMPILLY NAGAR. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN DT.23-11-2013. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT ISSUED FROM R1 OFFICE DT.23-11-2013. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT ISSUED FROM R4 OFFICE DT.23-11-201