Girinagar residential colony, said to be the first planned housing scheme in Kerala, has for long been caught in an urbanisation conundrum: pace vs peace.
Long-standing legal constraints have barred property owners from making any infrastructural changes, citing a 60-year-old patta agreement that classified the land strictly for “non-commercial use”.
The curbs were tightened following a petition filed by a group of residents who argued that commercialisation would disrupt the “peaceful nature of the residential colony”.
While concerns such as noise pollution, parking issues, and overuse of common amenities were cited, the larger picture told a different story. Sandwiched between the commercial hubs of Panampilly Nagar and Kadavanthra, Girinagar has remained a quaint pocket in the city.
A bit of history. Girinagar was established in the 1960s on about 33 acres (including for civic amenities) under a state government scheme, with 279 single-storey homes built for middle- and low-income residents. The novel project was implemented by the Ernakulam Co-operative House Construction Society.
As time passed, many first-generation owners passed away, and their properties were left to families living elsewhere. Some of the remaining elderly residents began renting out their homes or parts of them for commercial use as a source of income.
But in 2015, as a section of residents moved court, leading to a halt on all forms of construction and commercial activity. Meanwhile, some residents had already received permits and converted their homes into commercial spaces. They paid commercial taxes as well.
“For many residents, renting out buildings for commercial purposes was their only income. Most are senior citizens residing alone, and having tenants was a great help,” says a resident who requested anonymity.
After years of contention, the High Court, on April 10, dismissed the 2015 writ petition.
“On aforementioned observations, I deem that the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted, nor the contentions worth warranting the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the constitution. Accordingly, the prayers sought in the writ petition cannot be entertained,” Justice P M Manoj stated.
Ahead of the verdict, the court observed that “with space being a scarce resource, people are compelled to make the most efficient use of the available land”.
“As a result, commercial establishments have inevitably emerged even within residential areas. Such commercial usage is no longer seen as an exception but rather as a practical necessity of modern urban living,” the judge noted.
“Many housing societies now make express provisions for such mixed usage, and this trend is not only accepted but often welcomed by the majority of the residents. Raising objections solely on the ground that non-residential use is impermissible in residential societies appears to ignore the practical realities of modern urban living.”
However, it’s not a case of carte blanche. The court, in its verdict, has also directed the government and the corporation to “be vigilant against further conversion of residential occupancy to commercial occupancy, which will affect the basic nature of residential occupancy area and will affect their right to have a decent life under Article 21 of the Constitution…. Any future application for converting the residential occupancy to a commercial nature shall be viewed accordingly.”
What next?
Property owners who have advocated change see a ray of hope in the court’s ruling. They believe curbs on the permits issued for commercial activities will finally be lifted for good.
Sujith Menon, a business consultant who has been spearheading the legal fight for change in status quo, points out that of 279 residents of the society, only 19 were against commercial activities in the area.
“All the problems were solely due to vested interests of certain individuals,” he says. “My building has been a commercial building since 2008. I pay commercial taxes to this day. Yet, the tenants were harassed until they moved out. It was an income source for my ailing mother. I felt it was bullying. That is why I took up the legal battle. Commercialisation is inevitable when we are part of a growing city like this.”
Another resident, Sebi Sebastian, hopes the court’s decision could mark a new beginning for Girinagar. “Construction of house-cum-apartment complex stalled in 2017, even though we were only constructing a residential building. The builders abandoned the project after repeated harassment. Subsequently, our permit lapsed. My father passed away under severe stress due to this,” he laments.
Seejo P J, who owns a building in the area, says he faced similar issues. “Our commercial permit was revoked, and we could not use the building anymore. During the lockdown, the unused property became a hub for anti-social activities. Now, with this latest verdict, I hope to get my permit reissued,” he says.
Architect Thomas Kuruvilla, who resides in the area, terms the opposition to commercial activity “absurd”. “I use my upstairs as my own office space. But even this was questioned and made into an issue by some,” he says.
Meanwhile, the residents in the ‘opposing camp’ maintain that their concern is only over the “commotion that usually comes along with commercialisation”.
“These plots were initially given to people from outside who came for work in the city at affordable prices back then. Now if their families don’t want to live here anymore, why not rent it out to residential tenants?” asks a resident, requesting anonymity.
“It is money-minded people who want to give it out for commercial purposes, disrupting the peaceful atmosphere of the society.”
Despite the court judgement, ambiguity regarding its implications still persists. “Nineteen residents, including myself, had approached the honourable High Court in 2015 seeking a stay on rampant commercialisation,” says a resident, who requested anonymity.
“The problems we raised were about using up common amenities like water and road, parking issues, noise pollution, pedestrian woes, etc. We respect the court’s verdict. We will wait and see how things pan out.”
Ward councillor Malini Kurup, meanwhile, clarifies that the corporation has not received any “official communication” from the court regarding the matter. “We will be able to proceed with changes in status quo only after that,” she says.
Girinagar is a classic case highlighting the complexities involved in striking a balance between emerging urban demands and rights of residents. As the court observed, “In the context of globalisation and rapid urban development, particularly with the growth of trade, commerce and city life, drawing a clear distinction between residential, non-residential premises in towns, cities, and metropolitan areas has become increasingly challenging.”