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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
K.A. ABDUL NAZAR – Appellant
Versus
THE ELAVANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28398 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN, SMT.SHAMSEERA, C.ASHRAF, SHRI.WINSTON K.V, SMT.ANU JACOB, SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SRI SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, GP, SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY

A writ of mandamus directs the responsible authority to consider representations concerning unauthorized encroachments on property.

Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks a mandamus for the removal of an unauthorized pipeline from the petitioner's land. The court hears both parties and allows the petition, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and act within two months. Key issue framed: whether the pipeline is unauthorized. The court reasons that due process must be followed in resolving property disputes as per applicable laws.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks to remove unauthorized pipeline. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court grants petitioner direction for consideration. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to remove forthwith the pipeline laid in the Petitioner’s plot having 0.0186 hectares of land in Re-Survey No. 4/7-6-2, Block No. 7, Elavanchery Village, Chittur Taluk & Palakkad District, forthwith;

ii) Declare that the pipeline drawn unauthorizedly through the petitioner’s plot is liable to be removed by the Respondents."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is aggrieved because of a pipeline going through his property. Petitioner submitted Ext.P6 before the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submitted that there may be a direction to consider the same.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat. I also heard the Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think that prayer can be allowed.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 and take appropriate action in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

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 Back to top