This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 6th respondent in demolishing a portion of the residential building in which the petitioners are residing as illegal and for a direction to the 6th respondent to restore the demolished portion of the petitioners' residential house to its original position at their cost. 2. The facts involved in this case would disclose that the petitioners are residing in a property having an extent of 12 cents in Sy. Nos. 680 and 683 of Vanchiyoor village. The building in the property is bearing Corporation No. T.C 44/1762(1). They have made certain valuable improvements in the property and believing that the property was puramboke land they sought for assignment. According to the petitioners, residents association sought for evicting the petitioners. In the meantime, land conservancy proceedings were taken. When the petitioners challenged the said proceedings, this Court interfered with the same in W.P(C) No. 20899/2007 and directed the District Collector to pass final orders on the application for assignment and in the meantime, the land conservancy proceedings were kept in abeyance.
3. The property was measured through a Taluk Surveyor. It was found that certain extent of property in Sy. No. 680/2B was road puramboke and a pipeline was running under the said property. The 2nd respondent therefore directed eviction of the petitioners from the said property. According to the petitioners, they had preferred an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner, which is pending.
4. In the mean time, it is stated that the Thiruvananthapuram Citizens Protection Form filed a complaint before the 6th respondent inter alia contending that the construction made by the petitioners in the property was illegal and they requested for demolishing the structures. The local authority directed the structures to be removed, against which the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The order was set aside. According to the petitioners, on 4.11.2013, the 6th respondent with the assistance of the 7th respondent, trespassed into the property of the petitioners and demolished the house without any further notice and hence the petitioners have come up praying for the reliefs aforesaid.
5. The 6th respondent has filed a statement inter alia stating that the building referred to in Sy. No. 680 is only a shed having a plinth area of 15 meters as per assignment register kept in the office of the Corporation. Building No. TC 37/60 referred by the petitioners, which is now re-numbered as TC No. 44/1762(1) is a double storeyed building belonging to another person. It is submitted that the building constructed is without any permit or licence from the Corporation. That apart, the Collector has dismissed the application for land assignment as per Ext. P22. It is inter alia observed that the land involved is a road puramboke. The District Collector had informed the Corporation as per letter dated 16.7.2013 that the application for assignment filed by the petitioners has been rejected. That apart, the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, by order dated 4.6.2013 has called upon the Corporation to demolish the unauthorised construction made by the petitioners in the puramboke land. It is stated that the construction made by the petitioners is unauthorised and trespassing into the road puramboke near Sreepadmanabha Swami Temple. The pipeline for cleaning the Sreepadmanabha Swami Temple pond is laid through the said land. The puramboke land forms part of the drainage road as well.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Ext. P25 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions setting aside the order dated 16.11.2008 of the Secretary, Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act.
7. But, it is relevant to note that Ext. P25 order of the Tribunal was passed on 1.3.2009 and the direction was to the 1st respondent to pass fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The Ombudsman's order at Ext. P26 is dated 4.6.2013, where the very same issue has been considered and the Ombudsman had directed the Corporation to find out what happened to the proceedings under Ext. P13. Ext. P13 was a notice issued under the Land Conservancy Act, which was interfered by the High Court. In Ext. P26 order, it was clearly mentioned that if application for assignment was turned out, then the construction made by the petitioners herein, are unauthorised and the Corporation can initiate appropriate action. Apparently, it is based on the direction so issued that the building of the petitioners had been demolished. Apparently, steps were taken by the Corporation after finalisation of the proceedings by the District Collector.
Under these circumstances, I do not think that the action of the 6th respondent is in any way illegal and therefore the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/