IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943 RP NO. 207 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3720/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/THIRD PARTIES: 1 V F JOHN,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O LATE. THRESSIAMMA FRANCIS, VILLANASSERI HOUSE, VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

2 BERNAD, AGED 68 YEARS S/O LATE.THRESSIAMMA FRANCIS, VILLANASSERI HOUSE, VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

3 ANTONEY, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE.THRESSIAMMA FRANCIS, VILLANASSERI HOUSE, VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

4 V.F.JUDE, AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE.THRESSIAMMA FRANCIS, VILLANASSERI HOUSE, VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

5 RAJUMON GEORGE, AGED 29 YEARS S/O LATE.N.F.GEORGE, NEDUVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM.P.O, KOCHI-682 025.

6 N.F.JOB, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O LATE. ANNAMMA FRANCIS NEDUVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM.P.O, KOCHI-682 025.

BY ADVS.

J.KRISHNAKUMAR P.V.THOMAS TONY GEORGE THOMAS LEENU ANANDHAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:

1 STANLY, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O GEORGE VETTIKKATTU @ VACKACHAN, VETTIKKATTU HOUSE, ALINCHUVADU, VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

2 PAILY, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O GEORGE VETTIKKATTU @ VACKACHAN, VETTIKKATTU HOUSE, ALINCHUVADU, VENNALA.P.O, KOCHI-682 028.

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM – 682 030.

4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA-I), KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM – 682 030.

5 THE KOCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM METRO STATION, 4TH FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SC SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 04.02.2022, has been filed alleging that writ petitioners had approached this Court suppressing material facts, including Annexure D order of the competent Civil Court. 2. The review petitioners allege that they had filed O.S.No.760/2019 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, with respect to the property and the building in question and that the writ petitioners, who were the defendants, had been restrained, through Annexure D order, from committing any waste thereon or from putting up any additional structures. The petitioners allege that it is suppressing this that they had approached this Court and obtained permission to demolish the building in question.

3. Even when I hear Sri.J.Krishna Kumar –

learned counsel for the review petitioners on the afore lines, the fact remains that what was presented before this Court was the plea of the writ petitioners that they want to demolish the building on their own, rather than allow the Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL) to do so. As long as the demolition was done as per the provisions of law and the instructions of the KMRL, I do not think that the review petitioners can have any cause against the same.

4. However, the questions whether the writ petitioners have acted in excess of what was expected in law; or if they have demolished more than what was necessary or are making new constructions in the property, are not matters which this Court has considered; and therefore, the review petitioners will have to invoke and pursue before the competent Civil Court, as they are advised. Merely because this Court had permitted demolition of the building, it will not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court from deciding whether there has been any violation of Annexure D order; and am, therefore, of the firm view that no further modification of the judgment in question is required in this review petition.

In the afore circumstances, clarifying that the review petitioners are at full liberty to approach the learned Munsiff's Court in any manner that they may deem fit with respect to Annexure D order, I close this petition without any further orders.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS APPENDIX OF R.P.NO.207 OF 2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANN