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) 12329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
BINU – Appellant
Versus
ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22614 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, SHRI.BABU V.P., SHRI.SHAHBAS AMAN C.M.
For the Respondents: SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, SMT.BIMALA BABY

Writ petitions under Article 226 cannot resolve disputed property rights; parties may seek civil court recourse.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks a writ of Mandamus to prevent the respondents from closing access to the petitioner's commercial building from the public road. The court found that the issue of right cannot be settled in a writ petition under Article 226. Hence, the petition is not entertained, allowing the petitioner to pursue the matter in civil court while maintaining status quo for 30 days. Therefore, the status quo regarding the property shall be maintained by the petitioner and the respondent Municipality for a period of 30 days.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks access to a public road. (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

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

" i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents not to deny/close access from the petitioner’s commercial building bearing no.4/243B to the public Municipal Road by name market road lying in front of his building; ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to use the Municipal Road by name market road lying in front of his commercial building for access to the said building bearing no.4/243B, being a public road;."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is to issue a direction to the respondents not to deny/close access from the petitioner’s commercial building bearing No.4/243B to the public Municipal Road by name, 'market road' lying in front of his building. The counsel appearing for the Municipality submitted that the petitioner has no such right, and according to the Standing Counsel, the property belongs to the Municipality. This is a disputed fact which cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open, and the petitioner is free to approach the competent civil court to redress the grievance in accordance with law. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the status quo may be maintained to facilitate the petitioner in approaching the jurisdictional civil court. I think, that prayer can be allowed. But, I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit and the status quo order is passed only to facilitate the petitioner for approaching the civil court and the civil court is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Therefore, the status quo regarding the property shall be maintained by the petitioner and the respondent Municipality for a period of 30 days.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

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