Kerala High Court
Subin Dominic vs Aluva Municipality on 6 May, 2025
2025:KER:33622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WA NO. 982 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2025 IN WP(C) NO.28334
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUBIN DOMINIC
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. DOMINIC B.V. BALYAPADATH
VEETTIL,ALUVA.P.O., ALUVA WEST VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101
2 P.O. POULOSE
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. P.P.OUSEPH, PUDUSERI VEETTIL,THYNORATHIL
ROAD, ALUVA P.O.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683101
3 P.J.JOHNSON
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. P.M.JOSE, KELANGATH PUDUSERI VEETTIL ,SOUTH
ADUVASERI P.O.ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683578
BY ADVS.
DEEPU THANKAN
UMMUL FIDA
2025:KER:33622
W.A.No.982 of 2025
2
LAKSHMI SREEDHAR
VINEETHA BOSE
CINDIA S.
GAYATHRI G.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ALUVA MUNICIPALITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PWD
QUARTERS, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, PIN - 683501
2 THE SECRETARY
ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PWD
QUARTERS, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, PIN - 683501
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION
ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, PIN - 683101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, BRIDGE ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR,
ALUVA, PIN - 683101
SRI. V.K SUNIL, GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:33622
W.A.No.982 of 2025
3
GOPINATH.P & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
W.A.No.982 of 2025
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
Gopinath P., J.
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the
interim order dated 07.04.2025 in W.P.(C) No.28334 of 2024,
through which the appellants/writ petitioners have been
directed to appear before the Secretary of the Municipality on
04.04.2025 for earmarking the plots allotted to them in the
temporary market being set up by the Municipality and further
directing them to execute necessary agreements for allotment
of temporary plots.
2025:KER:33622
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would submit that while the entire proceedings of the
Municipality commencing from Ext.P10 relate to the fish
vending stalls situated on Municipal land (within the premises of
the Aluva Market), the case of the petitioners is that the land
occupied by them has been in their possession and enjoyment
from 1930 onwards and they cannot be evicted from their land.
The learned counsel appearing for the Municipality refers to the
orders dated 05.12.2024, 27.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 to submit
that while the appellants have approached the Munsiff Court,
Aluva seeking injunction on the ground that the land which they
are occupying belong to them and they cannot be evicted, they
failed to obtain any temporary injunction despite the fact that
the suit has been pending since August, 2024. It is submitted
that the case of the appellants that the property in question
belongs to them and they have established their title over the
2025:KER:33622
property by adverse possession also cannot be sustained. It is
submitted that the appellants have also now executed
agreements with the Municipality and at this point of time, they
cannot challenge the interim order dated 07.04.2025. It is
submitted that the rights of the appellants, if any, over the
property in question has to be established before the Civil Court
and in the light of the various orders referred to above, they are
not entitled to now challenge the interim order dated
07.04.2025.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality and
taking into consideration the interim orders dated 05.12.2024,
27.02.2025 and 28.03.2025, we are of the view that the
appellants have not made out any case for grant of relief in this
writ appeal. While it would not be appropriate for this Court to
make observations regarding the claim of the appellants that
2025:KER:33622
they are the owners of the property which cannot be subject
matter of any proceedings by the Municipality pursuant to
Ext.P10 notice, we must observe that the right of the
appellants, if any, over the property has to be established
before a Civil Court and this question cannot be adjudicated in a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That
apart, a reading of the interim orders issued by this Court,
especially the order dated 28.03.2025 indicates that the
grievances highlighted by the appellants before this Court
were : (1) lack of proper vehicular access to the property, (2)
lack of drainage facility, (3) lack of electricity and (4) lack of
earmarking and identification of the property. Obviously, these
grievances were in relation to the properties that were
earmarked to be allotted to the appellants. The said claim of
the appellants cannot be mixed with their claim that the land
which they are now occupying belongs to them absolutely and
2025:KER:33622
as observed earlier the said claim has to be adjudicated by the
Civil Court.
Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the interim
order dated 07.04.2025 in W.P.(C) No.28334 of 2024. The writ
appeal will stand dismissed, in limine.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P, JUDGE.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE.
Mn
