The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning Ext.P9 order, issued by the 2^nd

respondent-Secretary of the Thalassery

Municipality, under the provisions of Section

406 of the Kerala Municipality Act asking her

to

demolish

a

small

toilet/latrine

constructed by her next to her property, on

the allegation that the area where the said

structure has been constructed does not

belong to her.

2.

The petitioner says that prior to

Ext.P9, Ext.P4 notice had been issued to her,

wherein again, it was accused that she had

constructed the toilet/latrine in a property

that does not belong to her and the

petitioner says that she had replied to the

same through Ext.P6 objections, wherein, she

has explained that she is in possession of

the property in question, conceding that

there are certain civil litigations between

her family members, which are still pending

in a Civil Court.

WP(C).No.29617 OF 2019 3

3.

The petitioner says that the

Municipality, however, has pre-judged the

title of the parties and has virtually found

that she is not entitled to the ownership or

possession of the same, as if they are a

Civil Court, thus issuing Ext.P9 and

subsequently trespassing into the property

and demolishing the toilet/latrine on

17/07/2017.

4.

The petitioner asserts that, as has

been stated in paragraph four of the writ

petition, the latrine was constructed in the

year 2016 - under a Scheme of the Central

Government and on the recommendation of the

Kudumbasree Unit of that area, as per which

amounts were allotted to her for the

construction of the same finding that she had

no facility of a latrine otherwise. The

petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be

set aside and that the Municipality be

directed to reconstruct the latrine relying

on the judgment of a Division Bench of this

Court in Subaida Abdul Rasheed and Another v.

WP(C).No.29617 OF 2019 4

State of Kerala and Others [2015 KHC 7031].

5.

In answer to the afore submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner by

Shri.Harish R.Menon, the learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.3-Shri.Basant

Balaji, submitted that a counter affidavit

has been filed filed on behalf of his client

wherein the following have been stated.

“5.

On 31/05/1996 the 5 person who

are in joint ownership of the 38.5 cents

of property after the execution of Ext

R3(a) deed entered into another partition

by which the property having and extent

of 38.5 cents was partitioned by metes

and bound. One of the parties to the

partition deed namely Jayalakshmi

obtained 9 cents as per the partition

deed. She thereafter executed another

settlement deed No.1419/1996 on

01/06/1996 by which the 9 cents she

obtained was given to 5 persons namely

1) Jayakrishnan, 2)Sreenivasan, 3)

Pushpavally, 4) Suresh and 5) Jayaraman.

True copy of the settlement deed

no.1419/1996 dtd 01/06/2019 is produced

herewith and the same be marked as

Exhibit R3(b).

6.

In this connection it is respectfully

submitted that jayalakshmi who executed

Ext.R3(b) cancelled the said settlement

deed by Ext P7. Thereafter another

settlement deed was executed by

Jayalakshmi by which the 9 cents she

obtained was settled in favour of the this

respondent by Ext P8. It may be noted

that this respondent mutated the said

property in her name and is paying tax

WP(C).No.29617 OF 2019 5

for the same. True copy of the tax receipt

in the name of the 3^rd respondent

regarding the 9 cents obtained by Ext P8

is produced herewith and the same be

marked as Exhibit R3(c).

7.

In this connection it is respectfully

submitted that the petitioner started living

in the house in the property extending to

5 cents and during the year 2016 she

constructed a latrine in such as way the

major part of the latrine is constructed in

the property of the petitioner having and

extent of 9 cents she obtained from

Jayalakshmi. This respondent therefore

filed a