BABU ABRAHAM Vs. C.PHILIP GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 5 and 7 in the writ petition are the appellants herein. They challenge judgment dated 14/03/2014 in W.P.C.No.24034 of 2010 by which the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition quashed the building permit issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 7th respondent and has directed the 3rd respondent Corporation to remove all the structures put up in the plot measuring 15.567 cents in Krishna Vihar colony in Panampilly Nagar which is made up of 7 cents in Sy.No.716, 0.65 cents in Sy.No.716/4 and 7.910 cents in Sy.No.718 of Ernakulam village, which is shown as an area acquired for parks in the Town planning scheme of Elamkulam West. It is also declared that the areas earmarked for parks and recreation space and open space in the layout plan prepared in the Elamkulam West Planning scheme for the purpose of Town Planning Act cannot be used for any other purpose unless and until the scheme is varied or altered in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(2.) The facts involved in the above writ petition would disclose that the 1st respondent herein (who is hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') filed the writ petition seeking for a declaration that the areas earmarked for parks in K.V.Colony as per Ext.P2 Town Planning Scheme cannot be used for any other purpose and sought for quashing Ext.P11 building permit issued in favour of the 7th respondent and for other reliefs. Greater Cochin Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'GCDA') had sold an extent of 2.3387 hectares of land as per Ext.P1 sale deed dated 13/10/1977 in favour of the Cochin Ship Yard Staff Co - operative House Construction Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). The property was forming part of the Elamkulam West Town Planning Scheme. The housing colony thus formed by the Society is known as Krishna Vihar colony. As per the Town Planning Scheme, the colony ought to have two parks which, according to the petitioner, are shaded with green colour (wash) in Ext.P2 plan. One park is situated somewhere in the middle of the colony and the other one, on the western side of 10 M wide road passing through the eastern boundary of the colony. It is stated that the Society executed sale deeds in favour of various persons excluding the park areas. Petitioner's mother was also an allottee, who, later on settled 1/4th right of her property in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P4 settlement deed dated 18/10/2007.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the Society sold the property earmarked for public park in favour of the 5th respondent as per sale deed No.4717 of 2004 and 6069 of 2004. He pleaded that he had come to know about the sale only when the 6th respondent announced the project as 'AC Sedona' in Panampilly Nagar. Petitioner approached the official respondents seeking various information as to how the park area could be used for construction of the building and having come to know about the building permit issued in favour of the 7th respondent, filed the writ petition, challenging the same. In the meantime, it is stated that the appellant has proceeded with some construction as well.