K.V.SHIBU Vs. VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents. The petitioners along with the 3rd respondent are the title holders and the owners of the shopping complex by name and style as Anken's Arcade in Sy.No.203/47 in a land to the extent of 26 1/2 cents in Vaikom Village. The shopping complex was built in the year 1990 and out of that, 6.400 cents of land is set apart for parking space for the vehicles coming to the shopping complex. The above property was set apart to the exclusive right, interest of the mother of petitioners 1 & 2 and the 3rd respondent. By a fraudulent manner, the 3 rd respondent obtained the property from the mother and obtained as his own property as per a settlement deed. When it came to the knowledge of the petitioners, they filed the suit to set aside the above said document and for a partition of the abovesaid property and in that suit, the 3rd respondent as a defendant made a counter claim for injunction, etc., and the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim of the 3rd respondent. Against both the dismissal of the suit and decreeing the counter claim, the petitioners filed appeals and it is pending before the Sub Court, Kottayam. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent initiated action to construct building in the 6.400 cents (parking area) of the shopping complex and at that time sent Exts.P-1 & P-2 notices to respondents 1 and 2 not to grant any permit to the 3 rd respondent to start any construction work in that area. Then the 3rd respondent initiated work of alteration of the shopping complex by demolishing the only toilet in the shopping complex and the toilet is the above of the septic tank and at that time, the petitioner made Ext.P-3 complaint to the 2 nd respondent, on which no action has been taken by the 2 nd respondent. Then the 3rd respondent not only demolished the toilet and made that space into a shop room by using iron pipes and made roofing and removed the wooden doors and fitted shutters to make that as a shop room for conducting thattukada. Against that, the petitioners 1 to 3 made a complaint Ext.P-4 before the 2nd respondent and in that, an officer came from the Municipality to see the alteration work, but no further action has been taken. It is also submitted that the abovesaid alteration work in the shopping complex is without any permit from the respondents 1 and 2 and the action is also in violation of building rules.

(2.) In the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

(3.) Heard Sri.K.Shrihari Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.A.Sreekala, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.S.Sujin, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent. It is pointed out by Smt.A.Sreekala, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2-Vaikom Municipality that action has been taken by the respondent-Municipality on Ext.P-4 complaint preferred by the petitioners and now the respondent-Municipal Authorities have issued Exts.R-2(a) provisional order & R-2(b) notice to the 3 rd respondent. Further it is pointed out that Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 09.01.2020 has been issued by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P-6 show cause notice dated 09.01.2020 has also been issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent, etc.