A court's decree confirming property rights takes precedence over administrative demolition orders.

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 2^nd 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 3^rd 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 demolishing it, and he also had obtained a building permit for that purpose. However, the 3^rd respondent sought to institute a complaint, pointing out that there is an encroachment from the side of the petitioner. It is on that basis that the impugned proceeding – Stop Memo at Ext.P5 – and the subsequent notice at Ext.P9 has been issued.

4. This Court notices that a civil suit was instituted by the petitioner against some other third parties, including the 3^rd respondent herein, when an attempt was made to cause obstruction for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property referred to above and also when steps were taken for obstructing the constructions in the plaint schedule property. A declaration was sought for from the civil court as regards the proposed demolition of the eastern side compound wall in the property. The Munsiff's Court, Kollam, by the Judgment dated 31.01.2025 in O.S. No.593 of 2022, has decreed the suit after taking evidence by restraining the respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and also from demolishing the eastern side compound wall.

5. A reading of the Judgment would show that the plaintiffs – the petitioners – claim as regards the property in question has been accepted, and that is why the decree has been issued.

In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the Stop Memo and the subsequent proceedings at Ext.P9 cannot be sustained. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P5 – Stop Memo and Ext.P9 notice.

Sd/-