Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
RAJAN AUGUSTINE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to administrative actions based on property ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. previous court ruling acknowledged regarding property possession. (Para 4) |
| 3. judgment emphasizes the supremacy of judicial decisions over administrative orders. (Para 5) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Exts.P5, P7 and P9 issued by the 2nd respondent insofar as the petitioner was directed to demolish a compound wall in his property.
2. I have heard Sri. C.R. Jayakumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. S. Sreekumar (Kollam), the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Municipality. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance from the side of the 3rd respondent – complainant on whose behalf the proceedings are taken against the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has stated that he has an absolute title, possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in Re.Survey Nos.117 & 118 in Block No.11 of Kollam East Village. It is in the aforementioned property that his residential building is situated and the disputed compound wall is present. The petitioner wanted to reconstruct the compound wall after demolishi
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
