SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
SULAIHAMMA KHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN, SRI.M.KIRANLAL, SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA), SRI.T.S.SARATH, SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR, SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON, SMT. AASHI K. SHAJAN, SHRI.RAVISANKAR C.R.
For the Respondents: ADV. VIDHYA A.C., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top