Joy V.V vs The Thrissur Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 11126 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
SATURDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 38481 OF 2015
PETITIONER:

          JOY V.V.
          AGED 43 YEARS
          S/O.VAREED, RESIDING AT VADAKKAN HOUSE, VYLOPPILLY
          2ND STREET, P.O.JUBILEE MISSION, THRISSUR 680 001.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
          SRI.P.S.APPU
          SRI.A.R.NIMOD


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE THRISSUR CORPORATION
          REP. BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR
          680 001.
    2     THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION
          ZONAL OFFICE, OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR 680 655.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.V.N.HARIDAS
          SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION
          SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN



    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
  19.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.38481of 2015
                                         2



                         MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,J
                      ------------------------
                          WP(C).No.38481 of 2015
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
                 Dated this the 19th day of November, 2022


                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner owns 0.0119 hectares in Sy.No.593/2 of

Nettissery Village in Thrissur District. He submits that the

corporation had constructed a 'Thodu' in front of his property

without leaving any access to the road, while it had constructed

culverts to provide road access to several other similarly situated

persons. No such relief was granted to the petitioner. The

petitioner then took upon himself the task of constructing a small

culvert with slabs so as to use it as an access. The corporation

responded through Ext.P2 directing the petitioner to demolish the

culvert for which the petitioner has given a reply, Ext.P3 stating the

above facts and sought for regularising the said construction.

Today when the matter is taken, the learned counsel for the

corporation submits that technically the claim for regularisation

cannot be maintained as the culvert is put up in a property that

does not belong to the petitioner. Petitioner has narrated the

circumstances in which he had put up the culvert in Ext.P3, which

is a reply to Ext.P2. In such circumstances, there will be a

direction to the Thrissur Corporation to consider the reply made by WP(C).No.38481of 2015

the petitioner to Ext.P2 as a request for permission to put up a

culvert in the circumstances mentioned above and take an

appropriate decision. The corporation shall also consider the

contention of the petitioner that other similarly placed persons

were given the permission to put up culverts to be used as access to

the road. The petitioner will also be free to produce any other

material before the corporation. The corporation will take a

decision on the lines directed above within a period of three months

after hearing the petitioner. Till a decision is taken and

communicated to the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken

against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P2.

Writ petition is disposed as above.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P., JUDGE

Raj/19.11.2022 WP(C).No.38481of 2015

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38481/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISUED TO THE PETITIONER DATD 25.9.2014 P2- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 2.12.2015 P3- TREU COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION /APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETIITNER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2015