Kerala High Court
K.A.Kumaran vs Cochin Corporation
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/13TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 24356 of 2013 (T)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
1. K.A.KUMARAN, AGED 90 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, NAMBRATTIL HOUSE, POONITHURA VILLAGE
PONNURUNNI, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. LALITHA K.K, AGED 58 YEARS
D/O. K.A.KUMARAN, NAMBRATTIL HOUSE,
POONITHURA VILLAGE
PONNURUNNI, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.BALAN
SRI.JAYABAL.B
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. COCHIN CORPORATION
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT
TRIVANDRUM-695001.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN
R1 BY MILLU DANDAPANI, SC FOR COCHIN CORPORATION
R BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 24356 of 2013 (T)
----------------------------
A P P E N D I X
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 25-4-05 ISSUED FROM THE
COCHIN CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN DATED 25-4-05 ISSUED
FROM THE COCHIN CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 17-9-10 ISSUED FROM THE
COCHIN CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN DATED 17-9-10 ISSUED
FROM THE COCHIN CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P5- THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF RELINQUISHMENT OF
LAND AND DECLARATION IN `FORM A' DATED 6-4-05.
EXHIBIT P6- THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED 7-04-05 IN STAMP
PAPERS IN FAVOUR OF THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P7- THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23-9-13 GIVEN BEFORE
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P8- THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23-09-13 OBTAINED FROM
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P9- THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23-09-13 GIVEN
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10- THE RECEIPT NO. 39469 DATED 23-09-13 OBTAINED FROM THE
COCHIN CORPORATION FOR GIVING THE COMPLAINT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(c) No.24356 of 2013-T
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th October, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are owners of an extent of 9.950 cents of land in Sy.Nos.766/3 and 769 in Poonithura Village, Ernakulam district. The petitioners obtained the property in their capacity as the legal heirs of Smt.M.C.Lakshmi, the wife of the 1st petitioner, after her death. The petitioners' complaint is that, the officials of the 1st respondent have trespassed into their property and have constructed a drainage channel therein, utilising about one cent of the property. Thereupon, they made enquiries with the 1st respondent and came to know that the officials had acted on the strength of Exts.P5 and P6 documents alleged to have been executed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they have not executed any such documents. The said documents are forged documents. It is contended that, they had signed certain blank papers and had handed them over to a private Engineer for the purpose of obtaining a building permit for construction of an upper floor of their existing building. Their W.P(c) No.24356 of 2013-T 2 allegation is that, the said blank papers have been made use of by the said persons or the officials of the Corporation to create Exts.P5 and P6.
2. Advocate Millu Dandapani appears for the 1st respondent. The learned Government Pleader appears for the 2nd respondent.
3. Heard. A perusal of Exts.P5 and P6 shows that both the said documents bear the signatures of the petitioners. Ext.P5 is an application for relinquishment of land executed on the prescribed proforma. The same is attested by the Village Officer and Tahsildar. Ext.P6 is executed on a stamp paper. Though the case of the petitioners is that they had signed certain blank papers and handed them over to a private Engineer, one fails to understand how the proforma Ext.P5 and the document on stamp paper Ext.P6 came to be executed. Even if it is assumed that the case of the petitioners is genuine, the same would have to be established by adducing evidence, in proper proceedings that they would have to institute in a competent civil court. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is ill-suited for determination of such contentious question of facts. Therefore, I am not satisfied that this Writ Petition should be entertained or W.P(c) No.24356 of 2013-T 3 any relief should be granted to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners makes a final request that Ext.P9 representation made to the 1st respondent may be directed to be considered. The request is accepted.
4. There shall therefore be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/