AJITH KUMAR S. Vs. VARKALA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that demolition of his building, as was ordered by the Municipality through Ext. P2, be completed forthwith, since 60% of it has already been demolished and continuation of the balance causes irreparable prejudice and damage to him, particularly because mutation of the property, which houses this building and purchased by him from an earlier owner, has not been effected in his name solely on account of the illegal construction which is now sought to be demolished.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that demolition has been now stopped by the Municipality singularly on account of the objections raised by the 3rd respondent, who is a tenant of another building, which is not covered by Ext. P2 and who will not be in any manner prejudiced by the demolition. The petitioner adds that the 3rd respondent had, in fact, approached this Court earlier by filing W.P(C) No. 35211 of 2015, which was dismissed finding him to have no locus standi and that this judgment had been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1023 of 2019. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext. P2 be now directed to be implemented fully.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel-Smt. Sumathy Dandapani, instructed by Shri. Millu Dandapani, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, adds to the afore narration, by saying that the 3rd respondent, having been found without any locus standi to challenge the demolition of the building covered by Ext. P2, is now attempting various other methods to ensure that such action is delayed. She says that there is no reason for the Municipality to accede to such attempt, especially the 3rd respondent will not be, in any manner, affected by the demolition because he is occupying another building, which is unconnected with the building sought to be demolished. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prays that Ext. P2 be directed to be implemented fully without any further delay.