V F John vs Stanly
2022 Latest Caselaw 1955 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
                          RP NO. 207 OF 2022
    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3720/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/THIRD PARTIES:

1           V F JOHN,AGED 63 YEARS,
            S/O LATE. THRESSIAMMA FRANCIS,
            VILLANASSERI HOUSE,
            VENNALA.P.O,
            KOCHI-682 028.

2           BERNAD, AGED 68 YEARS
            S/O LATE.THRESSIAMMA FRANCIS,
            VILLANASSERI HOUSE,
            VENNALA.P.O,
            KOCHI-682 028.

3           ANTONEY, AGED 65 YEARS,
            S/O LATE.THRESSIAMMA FRANCIS,
            VILLANASSERI HOUSE,
            VENNALA.P.O,
            KOCHI-682 028.

4           V.F.JUDE, AGED 56 YEARS
            S/O LATE.THRESSIAMMA FRANCIS,
            VILLANASSERI HOUSE,
            VENNALA.P.O,
            KOCHI-682 028.

5           RAJUMON GEORGE, AGED 29 YEARS
            S/O LATE.N.F.GEORGE,
            NEDUVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            PALARIVATTOM.P.O, KOCHI-682 025.

6           N.F.JOB, AGED 73 YEARS,
            S/O LATE. ANNAMMA FRANCIS
            NEDUVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            PALARIVATTOM.P.O, KOCHI-682 025.

            BY ADVS.
            J.KRISHNAKUMAR
            P.V.THOMAS
            TONY GEORGE THOMAS
            LEENU ANANDHAN
 RP NO.207/2022 in W.P.(C)No.3720/2022

                                   -2-



RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:

1          STANLY, AGED 67 YEARS,
           S/O GEORGE VETTIKKATTU @ VACKACHAN,
           VETTIKKATTU HOUSE, ALINCHUVADU,
           VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

2          PAILY, AGED 59 YEARS,
           S/O GEORGE VETTIKKATTU @ VACKACHAN,
           VETTIKKATTU HOUSE, ALINCHUVADU,
           VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

3          THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
           COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
           ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

4          THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA-I),
           KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION,
           KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

5          THE KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
           JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM METRO STATION,
           4TH FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.
           SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI         SC

           SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY        SR.G.P

      THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2022,    THE   COURT    ON   THE    SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP NO.207/2022 in W.P.(C)No.3720/2022

                                      -3-

                                    ORDER

This petition, seeking review of the judgment

of this Court dated 04.02.2022, has been filed

alleging that writ petitioners had approached this

Court suppressing material facts, including

Annexure D order of the competent Civil Court.

2. The review petitioners allege that they

had filed O.S.No.760/2019 before the Munsiff's

Court, Ernakulam, with respect to the property and

the building in question and that the writ

petitioners, who were the defendants, had been

restrained, through Annexure D order, from

committing any waste thereon or from putting up

any additional structures. The petitioners allege

that it is suppressing this that they had

approached this Court and obtained permission to

demolish the building in question.

3. Even when I hear Sri.J.Krishna Kumar - RP NO.207/2022 in W.P.(C)No.3720/2022

learned counsel for the review petitioners on the

afore lines, the fact remains that what was

presented before this Court was the plea of the

writ petitioners that they want to demolish the

building on their own, rather than allow the Kochi

Metro Rail Limited (KMRL) to do so. As long as the

demolition was done as per the provisions of law

and the instructions of the KMRL, I do not think

that the review petitioners can have any cause

against the same.

4. However, the questions whether the writ

petitioners have acted in excess of what was

expected in law; or if they have demolished more

than what was necessary or are making new

constructions in the property, are not matters

which this Court has considered; and therefore,

the review petitioners will have to invoke and

pursue before the competent Civil Court, as they

are advised. Merely because this Court had RP NO.207/2022 in W.P.(C)No.3720/2022

permitted demolition of the building, it will not

oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court from

deciding whether there has been any violation of

Annexure D order; and am, therefore, of the firm

view that no further modification of the judgment

in question is required in this review petition.

In the afore circumstances, clarifying that

the review petitioners are at full liberty to

approach the learned Munsiff's Court in any manner

that they may deem fit with respect to Annexure D

order, I close this petition without any further

orders.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS RP NO.207/2022 in W.P.(C)No.3720/2022

APPENDIX OF R.P.NO.207 OF 2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 05.11.2020 IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING NO.41/2029 COCHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.06.2021 ISSUED FROM EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE

ANNEXURE B(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.02.2022 ISSUED FROM EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL SUIT NO.760/2019 IN THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 27.05.2019