YAHIYA RABUTHAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue which was once settled by Exhibit P8 has been made complex by the high handed action of the respondent-Municipality in attempting to evict the petitioner with 24 hour notice, as is seen from Exhibit P15.

(2.) The petitioner, was in possession of a shop room in a parking space allotted for parking of taxies. The petitioner admittedly had been in occupation from 1993 onwards. Earlier there were other shop rooms, in which also licensees were inducted. It is the submission of the Municipality that the other licenssees were evicted and the petitioner was the only person continuing in the subject premises. It is also submitted that the particular premises was intended to be a waiting shed with four pillars, which was covered and used by the petitioner as a shop room; admittedly on licence of the Municipality. The petitioner is now alleged to be in illegal possession of the premises, since the land vested with the Municipality on orders of the Government; was specifically for the purpose of parking of taxies and not for any other purpose, as per Exhibit R7(1). It is also stated that by Exhibit R7(2) the District Collector had issued communication to the Municipality threatening resumption of the property if it is not restored to the original use, for which the transfer was effected.

(3.) At the outset, the earlier litigation has to be looked at. The petitioner was before this Court with W.P.(C) No.31213 of 2016 against the rejection of an appeal filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions [for brevity "the Tribunal"], wherein the orders of the Municipality directing demolition of an unauthorised construction was the subject matter. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was in occupation of more area than that was originally licensed to him. The Tribunal, hence, rejected the appeal confirming the order of the Secretary. This Court also found, by Exhibit P8, that the petitioner was originally put in possession of only 16.98 square meters. The contention with respect to the petitioner being in possession of 27 square meters on the strength of a plan of the Assistant Engineer was found to be not sustainable. This Court, hence, affirmed the order of the Tribunal and directed the demolition of the unauthorised constructions made beyond the area licensed to the petitioner.