Kerala High Court
Libu George vs The Kochi Metro Rail Limited on 17 February, 2025
W.A.Nos.95 & 98 of 2023 1 2025:KER:14385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 95 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2021 IN WP(C) NO.17815
OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RAJAGOPALAN PARAKKAL
S/O. MARAYANA MENON , LEKSHMI, ASHOKA ROAD,
KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 017
2 RAJALAKSHMI RAJAGOPAL,
W/O.RAJAGOPALAN PARAKKAL, LEKSHMI,
ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 017
BY ADVS.
C.DILIP
T.U.ZIYAD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JLN METRO
STATION, 4TH FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED, JLN METRO STATION,
4TH FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-680 030
W.A.Nos.95 & 98 of 2023 2 2025:KER:14385
4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
ROADS DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, SEAPORT-AIRPORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA,
KOCHI-682 021
5 THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI-682 030
6 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 001
BY ADVS.
A.K.PREETHA
C.ANIL KUMAR(K/000906/1993)
DEVIKA MOHAN(K/1257/2021)
S.JAMAL
S.TEKCHAND - SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.98/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.95 & 98 of 2023 3 2025:KER:14385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 98 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2021 IN WP(C) NO.17814
OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 LIBU GEORGE
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O P.V. GEORGE, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE,
VARKEY SANTHISTHAN ROAD, MUTTAMBALAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686 004.
2 DR.SHERIN SHINY MATHEWS
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O LIBU GEORGE KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, VARKEY
SANTHISTHAN ROAD, MUTTAMBALAM- P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686 004.
BY ADVS.
C.DILIP
T.U.ZIYAD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JLN METRO
STATION, 4TH FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED, JLN METRO STATION,
4TH FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.
W.A.Nos.95 & 98 of 2023 4 2025:KER:14385
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, 682 030.
4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ROADS DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER SEAPORT-AIRPORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA,
KOCHI-682 021.
5 THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI-682 030.
6 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 001.
BY ADVS.
A.K.PREETHA
C.ANIL KUMAR(K/000906/1993)
DEVIKA MOHAN(K/1257/2021)
S.JAMAL
S.TEKCHAND - SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.95/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.95 & 98 of 2023 5 2025:KER:14385
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of February 2025
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
Heard Mr.T.U.Ziyad, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants; Ms.A.K.Preetha, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1
and 2; Mr.S.Jamal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5.
2. These appeals are filed challenging a common judgment dated 7
December 2021 in W.P(C)Nos.17815 & 17814 of 2020 respectively. Six
prayers were made in the Writ Petitions. Primarily, the Petitioners seek to
restrain the respondents from carrying out any construction on the eastern
side of their property, thereby reducing the width of the access road. Relief
is also sought for removal of the newly constructed wall on the western side
of the seaport-airport road, which restricts direct entry to the Petitioners'
property.
3. As regards the construction is concerned, the same has been
completed. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the wall
which restricts the entry to the Petitioners' property may be removed, and
the width of the service road may be increased. The learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment found that the reliefs sought by the Petitioners
concerning the road cannot be granted as the larger public interest
demands that the width of the road be as proposed by the Respondent
authorities.
W.A.Nos.95 & 98 of 2023 6 2025:KER:14385
4. The road and the wall in question are not in the property of the
Petitioners. The main grievance of the Petitioners is that their access to the
public road is being affected. This is not a suit for establishment of
easement right. As far as the width of the access road is concerned, the
Respondents have taken a decision based on the need and the wall is
constructed for strengthening the slope. On this issue of width of the road,
the learned Single Judge was right in holding that while exercising writ
jurisdiction, the larger public interest would override the personal interest
of the Petitioners. If any easement right exists for the Appellants, it is
always open to them to take such recourse as may be available in law.
5. These appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
Nitin Jamdar
Chief Justice
Sd/-
S. Manu
Judge
MC/17.2
W.A.Nos.95 & 98 of 2023 7 2025:KER:14385
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the Sketch showing the status
of construction works in the area
Annexure R1(b) True copy of the Photographs showing the
present stage of the construction works in
the area
W.A.Nos.95 & 98 of 2023 8 2025:KER:14385
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the sketch showing status of
construction works in the area
Annexure R1(b) True copy of the Photographs showing the
present stage of the construction works in
the area
