Citizens can seek legal action against illegal construction affecting public property without proving personal injury, and urgency can be established by filing for interim relief.

JUDGMENT

Since it is a matter under Section 80 (2) of CPC and the non compliance of mandate thereunder, notice to the party respondents 1 to 6 is hereby dispensed with. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2. A suit was filed with a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as mandatory injunction pertaining to an illegal construction made over the government land. Interim application for injunction was also submitted so as to stall further construction of building over the property. But, the learned Munsiff framed two primary issues as to (1) whether the petitioner in this case is seeking urgent and immediate relief against the respondent Nos.7 to 14; and (2) relief and costs, and answered the issue No.1 in the following lines.

“In this petition no right of the petitioner has been infringed and no urgent or immediate relief has been claimed against the Government. Hence I don't find any merit in the petition and directed to return the plaint for presentation before the court after complying the requirements under Sec.80(1) of Code of Civil procedure.”

3. First of all, when a suit was instituted along with an interim injunction application, it would prima facie satisfy the urgency in the matter. Secondly, the ground raised by the trial court cannot be sustained as it was covered by a decision of this Court inSaina& Others v. Konderi & Others [ 1984 KLT 428 ]. Any citizen can maintain an action without showing even a personal injury with respect to a construction of a building in violation of Municipal Building Rules or in a property vested with the government or public at large.

4. Yet another grave mistake was also committed by the trial court since there are private parties to the suit, apart from the government officials and it is not permissible to dismiss the suit in toto as against the private parties. The legal position is very much settled by this Court in Thomas Cherian v. Kurien Mathew and others [2018 (3) KHC 784 = 2018 (3) KLT 41 = ILR 2018 (3)

Ker. 157].

5. The order passed by the learned Munsiff found to be per se illegal and perverse, liable to be set aside by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and I do so. The application - I.A.No.1/2023 will stand allowed. The trial court shall number the suit and consider the pending interim injunction application without causing further delay.

The Original Petition will stand disposed of accordingly.