A.Faziludee vs Secretary, Corporation Of Thiruvananthapuram Thiruvananthapuram

Shaji P.Chaly, J

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent to correct the name of the owner in the official records with respect to building bearing TC No.32/751 in Titanium Ward, Thiruvananthapuram and issue Possession Certificate in favour of petitioner;

ii) Issue a writ mandamus or other appropriate writ order direction, directing the respondent to issue fresh or re-allot or regularize the Building bearing TC No.32/751 in favour of the petitioner which was constructed in the land allotted as per Exhibit-P1."

The case put forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner has secured 12.357 cents of land in a developmental area within the limits of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, as per Exhibit P1 for the purpose of manufacturing of cleaning powder. The petitioner constructed a building and according to him, he obtained a temporary building No.TC 32/751. However, he has not received electric connection from KSEB since the building was standing in the name of one Sujatha and the KSEB officers directed the petitioner to produce the possession certificate from the Secretary of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. When the petitioner approached the Secretary of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, he was informed as per Exhibit P3 that the building number specified above was allotted in favour of one Sharafudeen. Thereupon the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P6 application before the Secretary of the Corporation for correction of the name of the owner and to issue possession certificate. However, the Secretary has not taken any steps so far, which persuaded the petitioner to file this writ petition.

A statement is filed by the Secretary of the Corporation refuting the allegations and contentions raised by the petitioner and narrating the entire history of the case projected by the petitioner. I think it is only appropriate that the contentions raised in the statement is recorded for convenience and future purposes and they read thus:

"2. It is submitted that the Petitioner had carried on a small scale business in an unauthorized building constructed by him without obtaining any permit or licence from the Corporation in Plot Number IDA 16 of the Industrial Development Area at Titanium Ward No.32. On enquiries it is found that the Petitioner has never obtained licence from the Corporation under the Dangerous and Offensive (Trades and Factories) Rules and the building in which the business was conducted by the Petitioner was never given a TC Number by the Corporation in accordance with law. It is seen that the Petitioner had fraudulently and by misleading the authorities by producing false and fabricated documents had obtained a T.C. Number given to the building belonging to another person and has fraudulently obtained Electric connection to the building. But the Electric connection was later disconnected by the K.S.E.B for non payment of the Electricity charges. Since the Petitioner miserably failed to produce any document before the K.S.E.B to prove his ownership over the building, the Electric supply was never restored to his building.

It may kindly be noted that the Petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Ombudsman by filing O.P No. 1859/2010 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Ombudsman by order dated 8-5-2012 on the ground that the Petitioner was having a T.C. Number fraudulently obtained by him. It is submitted that the Regional Joint Director of Urban Affairs Quilon, had made an enquiry regarding the alleged ownership of the Petitioner over the building in question and it was found that the claim of ownership put forward by the Petitioner is totally baseless, false and unfounded. Even though the Petitioner had also approached the Legal Services of Authority by filing P.C 4299/10 putting forward his grievances the same was also rejected by the Authority since the Petitioner failed to produce any document indicating his ownership over the property.

The Legal Services Authority gave an opportunity to the Petitioner for a personal hearing on 14-8-2010. But the Petitioner miserably failed to answer the questions put to him by the Authority and also the Petitioner failed to produce any reliable evidence to prove his ownership over the building. The Petitioner also did not produce any tax receipt or any Pattayam concerning the property in dispute before the Legal Services Authority. Even though the Petitioner was given ample opportunity to produce relevant documents to prove his ownership to the building in question, the Petitioner failed to produce any evidence and hence the Petition filed before the Legal Services of Authority was dismissed as withdrawn by the authority.

Later the Petitioner had submitted an Application written by him in white paper for necessary permission to construct a building without producing any documentary evidence whatsoever in support of the application for permission. Hence the Corporation could not pass any orders on the Application submitted by the Petitioner. Later the Petitioner again approached the Hon'ble Ombudsman, by filing a Petition putting forward his grievances and the said case was posted by the Hon'ble Ombudsman on 7-3-2011 to enable the Petitioner to produce the relevant documents in support of his case. But since the Petitioner miserably failed to produce any relevant document, the Hon'ble Ombudsman dismissed the Petition by directing the Petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for the redressal of his grievances. Hence the Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing Appeal No.45/2014 praying for the regularization of the building in question. The above Appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by Exhibit P3 order. But in the said order the Hon'ble Tribunal permitted the Petitioner to approach the Secretary of the Corporation by producing relevant document to prove his ownership over the building, within one month from the date of the order and the Secretary was given the liberty to decide on the Application for ownership with respect to Building No. TC 32/751. The Petitioner was also given liberty to file an Appeal against the notice dated 10-12-2013 issued by the Secretary of the Corporation to the Petitioner before the Council of the Corporation within one month from the date of the order. On the basis of Exhibit-P3 order issued by the Hon'ble Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Council of the Corporation without producing the relevant documents whatsoever to prove his title to the property in question. Hence the Council of the Corporation could not consider the Appeal of the Petitioner on merits and the same was also dismissed.

On enquires made by the Officers of the Corporation at the Industrial Development Area it is revealed that every Industrial Unit has displayed a Board showing a description as IDP. Plot No. 16. In the work shop by name High Tech Industries situated near the property of the Petitioner a Board carrying the description Plot No.16, 18, is shown. The said workshop is a vehicle service centre. There is another Industrial Unit by name Commands clays which has a Board exhibited with the description, Plot No.11, 14, 15, 16, 17. One Shri. T.J. Faisal is the owner of this plot. In another Industrial Unit which remains closed a Board showing Star Productions-IDA Plot No.16 is written.

It is submitted that on a detailed enquiry made it is revealed that TC No.32/751 relates to a provision store and the same is situated in the Al-science College - Veli Road near the area of beginning of Balanagar Road. It is revealed that the Petitioner has absolutely no connection with any building bearing TC No. 32/751. Hence it may kindly be noted that the Petitioner has played fraud on the Corporation authorities and have mislead them with regard to T.C. No.32/751 which is alleged to be the T.C. Number of his building. It is submitted that unless the Petitioner submits an Application in accordance with the provisions of the KMBR 1000 along with the relevant document relating to the property and after producing the Completion Certificate before the Corporation no T.C. Number can be given to the building of the Petitioner."

I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.Dinesh and learned standing counsel Sri.P.K.Manojkumar for the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and perused the pleadings and the materials on record.

On a reading of the statement filed by the Secretary of the Corporation it is categoric and clear that there is some complex situation pending, in the matter of allotment of the building number to the petitioner. The issues can be sorted out only by a fact finding body since the contentions put forth by the respective parties would show that there is a factual dispute clearly to be deciphered by a fact finding body in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Building Rules thereto. Therefore, it is only appropriate that an opportunity is provided to the petitioner as well as the Secretary of the Corporation to sort out the issue.

I am also informed that the completion certificate in respect of the construction was submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary of the Corporation, which is pending consideration. The submission of a completion certificate is a statutory requirement as per the provisions of Act 1994, Rules 1999 or Rules 2019. Therefore it is only appropriate that the Secretary is directed to consider the completion certificate submitted by the petitioner and the documents produced along with the same and attain finality at the earliest possible.

In order to enable the Secretary to proceed with the matter, the petitioner is granted liberty to produce whatever records necessary for adjudicating the issue before the Secretary within two weeks from today and the Secretary is directed to consider the completion certificate along with all the documents produced and attain finality to the same at the earliest and at any rate within one month thereafter, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.