AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXT-P1:
Copy of photographs of the petitioner''s bunk.
EXT0-P2:
Copy of the notice 6/12/2011
EXT-P3:
Copy of the inerim orders in wp(c)2623 & w.p(c)1143/2012 of the hon''ble high court.
RESPONDENTS'' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-R3(A):
Copy of notice no. f-3351/07 dated 29th may 2007 of the R.D.O. fortkochi
ANNEXURE-R3(B):
Copy of interim order dated 16th november 2011 in w.p.(c) no. 20531 of 2007
ANNEXURE-R3(C):
Copy of notice dated 08.06.2012 along with the inspection report dated 07.06.2012
Petitioner is running a bunk shop in Fort Kochi, which was stated as erected in the year 2007 allegedly with the sanction of the Cochin Corporation. Ext.P2 notice issued by the Corporation requiring to demolish the bunk and remove it for the reason that the same has been put up by the petitioner unauthorizedly and contrary to the relevant provisions of law; is under challenge. There is also a prayer for rehabilitation. The petitioner has put up a case also to the effect that, though the Corporation issued Ext.P2 much earlier, it was not sought to be implemented and while so, the third respondent has stepped in, asking the petitioner to remove/demolish the bunk; for which the third respondent is having absolutely no manner of interest whatsoever, which in turn is under challenge.
When the matter came for consideration before this Court on 22.06.2012, the following order was passed :
The learned standing counsel for the Corporation of Kochi and the earned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent Cochin Port Trust seek for a short time for filing a statement, stating that the petitioner is running an unauthorized bunk at the premises and that appropriate proceedings are being pursued in conformity with the statutory prescription and also based the verdicts passed by this Court on different points of time.
Post after two weeks.
Third respondent has filed a statement pointing out the sequence of events, particularly, that the property mentioned in Ext.P2 notice issued by the Corporation is not the property which belongs to the third respondent. It is however added in Paragraph 7 and elsewhere that the petitioner had actually put up the bunk encroaching into the property belonging to the third respondent, which was given on lease to the Cochin Aquatic Club. It was seen that the compound wall of the said property was lying damaged and dilapidated and the petitioner encroached into the said premises and put up the bunk. On coming across the factual position as above, a notice was given to the Aquatic Club on 08.06.2012, pursuant to the inspection report dated 07.06.2012, as borne by Ext.R3(c); whereby, the Aquatic Club was required to get the premises vacated, failing which, further coercive steps were to be taken against the club, including cancellation of the license. The present location where the petitioner''s bunk is put up, is in that property. The learned counsel submits, that the bunk of the petitioner is located in the said property which belongs to the third respondent and given on lease to Aquatic club.
The learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that the authorities under the relevant provisions of law had taken steps to evict all unauthorized vendors from Fort Kochi (from the Kamalakadavu Jetty to Vascoda Gama Square), invoking the power and procedure u/s 369 (3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act 1994. The Government are also decided to evict the unauthorized ventures from the revenue land and the encroachers were actually evicted from the said premises as per Ext.R3(a) order passed by the R.D.O, Fort Kochi on 29.05.2007; which by itself reveals that no temporary or permanent construction of any shop shall be permitted in the above area. Despite the proceedings as above, there were some encroachments as well; upon which a public interest litigation was filed before this Court as WP(C) 20531/07 wherein Annexure R3 (b) interim order was passed on 16th of November 2011 in the following terms :
Though in the year 2007, statement of objection came to be filed, indicating that, all encroachments from Fort Kochi were removed but in the light of fact that recent encroachment menance and inaction of the administration to control the crime in Fort Kochi gashed in news papers, the Collector concerned is directed to file statement of objection, what steps the administration had taken to remove encroachments and also safety measures for the tourists. Similarly, the 8th Respondent Cochin Port Trust is directed to file counter affidavit,indicating the steps taken by them for removing the encroachments, which come within the jurisdiction of the 8 th Respondent.
It is seen that, I was also a member to the said Interim Order passed by the Division Bench.
With regard to the alleged rights of the petitioner to put up and continue the bunk in the present location, which actually belongs to the third respondent and given on lease to the Cochin Aquatic Club, there is absolutely no vested right whatsoever for the petitioner, to have the relief granted, under any circumstances. The petitioner is liable to be evicted from premises by the concerned authorities even by seeking the assistance of police, if necessitated. With regard to the challenge raised against Ext.P2, it is seen that the said notice was issued by the Corporation as early as on 06.12.2011. The present writ petition challenging the said notice is projecting a ''stale cause of action'' and no interference is warranted in this writ petition. That apart, the necessity to evict such unauthorized encroachers stands concluded, by virtue of Annexure R3(b) order passed by this Court and also the steps taken by the concerned statutory authorities. This Court finds that there is no vested right for the petitioner to occupy any portion of the revenue land or such other land belonging to either the 3rd respondent or the Corporation. The challenge raised against Ext.P2 is thoroughly wrong and unfounded. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit or bonafides.