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 Ex