SUBIN DOMINIC Vs. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed challenging the interim order dtd. 7/4/2025 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 4/4/2025 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.

(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 dtd. 5/12/2024, 27/2/2025 and 28/3/2025 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 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 dtd. 7/4/2025. 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 dtd. 7/4/2025.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality and taking into consideration the interim orders dtd. 5/12/2024, 27/2/2025 and 28/3/2025, 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 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 dtd. 28/3/2025 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 as observed earlier the said claim has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court.