Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
SULAIHAMMA KHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35075 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners were accused of trespassing and were defended by evidence showing no encroachment. (Para 1) |
| 2. the government submitted no encroachment was found, leading the court to close the petition. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioners approached this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P6 notice issued by the P.W.D, Pathanamthitta, alleging that the petitioners had trespassed into the footpath, and have paved interlock tiles therein. As per Ext.P6, the petitioners were directed to remove the interlock tiles, failing which, the same will be done by the Department.
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader would submit that, on a further inspection conducted at the site, it is found that there is no encroachment on the part of the petitioners. In the circumstances, Ext.P6 will not be enforced. The submission is recorded and on the strength of it, the Writ Petition (Civil) will stand closed. Needless to say that there shall not be any precipitate action against the petitioners for removal of tiles, as contemplated in Ext.P6.
Sd/-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
