V VATHSAN Vs. V U RAZACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second petitioner in O.P.No. 1407 of 1995 is the appellant. He along with 28 others has filed the said writ petition seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) The Division Bench at the time of admission of the appeal on 18-3-1996 ordered that respondents 1 to 28 are unnecessary parties and therefore no notice need be sent to them. In view of the fact that the other petitioners in the O.P. have not filed any appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge and in view of the fact that the Division Bench at the time of admission of the appeal ordered that respondents 1 to 28 in the appeal are unnecessary parties the only person who is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge is the appellant. In the above circumstances, we are considering this appeal only in relation to the facts of the appellant's case and the reliefs, if any, will be confined to the appellant only.

(3.) The brief facts necessary for decision of the appeal are as follows: The appellant was a Government servant, who retired from service as a telephone operator in the Government Guest House, Ernakulam. He made an application dated 8-10-1987 to the Cochin Corporation for allotment of space near the Ernakulam Boat Jetty to put up a bunk shop for conducting business in ready made goods. The Corporation by resolution dated 22-12-1987 decided to allow the appellant to put up a bunk shop of the size 1.80 x 1.20 meter on the extreme north of the existing bunk shops near Boat Jetty, Ernakulam. The standing committee of the Corporation by resolution No. 64 dated 13-1-1988 had fixed the ground rent for the space at Rs. 200/- per month. In the light of the said two resolutions the Commission, Cochin Corporation had issued proceedings No. M.O.P. 6-21751/87 dated 28-1-1988 (Ext. P11) granting permission to the appellant to put up a bunk shop of the size 1.80 x 1.20 meter on the north extreme side of the existing bunk shops near the Boat Jetty, Ernakulam subject to certain conditions. It was specifically provided that the ground rent of Rs. 200/- per month has to be remitted in the revenue section of the Corporation, that the appellant has to execute an agreement in stamp paper and to pay 3 months' ground rent as advance and that on account of the putting up of the bunk shop no damage should be caused to the road nor any obstruction to the pedestrian. It was also provided that as and when the Corporation requires the said land the appellant shall remove the said bunk at his expense without raising any claim whatsoever in that regard. The appellant was also required to take necessary licence. Pursuant to the said grant the appellant had executed the agreement and also remitted a sum of Rs. 600/- towards advance, evidenced by receipt dated 30 -