A development authority may install kiosks on vested land if pedestrian access remains unobstructed.

GIDA had been assigned 25 hectares of reclaimed land in Sy.No.843, Ernakulam Village, for the Vypeen Bridges Project and related development.

It invited tenders for upkeep and development of the Queens walkway and adjacent areas; M/s. C. Jacob & Company was selected and paid ₹84 lakh to GIDA, and spent over ₹50 lakh on preliminary works.

The Tritvam Apartment Owners Association challenged proposed commercial kiosks, contending that they would obstruct pedestrian access and that GIDA lacked authority to develop the site.

The Single Judge held that the road and walkway vested in the Kochi Corporation and directed that no kiosks be constructed or operated. GIDA and the successful tenderer appealed.

GIDA later filed an additional affidavit proposing a separately demarcated 2.5-metre unobstructed walkway, with handrails separating it from the kiosk area.

1. Whether GIDA had authority to develop the Goshree–Chathiyath road and the adjacent Queens walkway on the assigned land.

2. Whether the proposed kiosks could be installed without unlawfully obstructing pedestrian access or infringing the rights of the apartment owners and the public.

3. Whether the apartment owners’ asserted private-law rights over the road and walkway could be determined in the writ petition.

Under Sections 51 and 56 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, GIDA was notified as a Development Authority and could exercise its statutory powers and perform its functions for the areas within its remit; the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 continued to apply as a regulatory regime, but not so as to displace GIDA’s development powers over land vested in it for the project.

The Court recognised that a public authority must safeguard pedestrians’ rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, including access to an unobstructed walkway.

The Single Judge had relied on Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Dharmashastha Temple Advisory Committees v. State of Kerala, Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala and Maniyar Illiyaz v. P. Ayyappan in considering pedestrian obstruction; the appellate court found no infringement on the proposed demarcation before it.

Disputes about private-law rights over the site were matters for the civil suits, and would not be determined in the writ petition.

The Court traced the Government orders and patta and concluded that the 25 hectares had been assigned to GIDA for the Vypeen Bridges Project and development, and had not vested in the Kochi Corporation; the Corporation’s asset register did not include the land.

It therefore rejected the Single Judge’s finding that GIDA lacked authority over the road and walkway, while clarifying that municipal regulation continued to apply subject to GIDA’s project-related powers.

On pedestrian access, the additional affidavit proposed a distinct, 2.5-metre walkway separated from the kiosk area by handrails. In light of that proposal, the Court found no basis to conclude that the kiosks, as proposed, would obstruct pedestrian movement or infringe fundamental rights.

It also considered that the writ petition was not the proper forum to determine the apartment owners’ alleged private rights, particularly as civil suits were pending.

The Court declared that GIDA had authority to develop the road and walkway situated on the 25 hectares assigned to it in Sy.No.843, Ernakulam Village.

It further held that, on the material before it, kiosks proposed with the demarcated pedestrian walkway could not be treated as illegal or as violating the petitioners’ rights.

Any private-law rights asserted by the apartment owners were left for determination in the civil proceedings.