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) 12990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MUHAMMAD ALI – Appellant
Versus
PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6731 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.NAHAS H., SMT.FARHANA K.H.
For the Respondents: SRI V PHILIP MATHEW

The court emphasized the need for appropriate consideration of grievances regarding unauthorized construction as per local laws.

Headnote:Pursuant to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, a writ of mandamus is sought to restrain unauthorized construction without a valid permit. The petitioner argues that no response was received for his representation regarding these unauthorized constructions. The court prioritizes the representation process, directing a hearing for both parties. The petition is dismissed subject to the direction for a hearing within one month.

Table of Content
1. grievance regarding unauthorized construction ignored. (Para 2)
2. hearing direction issued for all parties involved. (Para 3)
3. writ petition disposed with compliance directions. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to immediately stop all construction activities being carried out by the 3rd respondent without a valid building permit;

2. Direct respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , including demolition of the unauthorised construction encroaching upon the pathway;

3. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

4. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged unauthorised construction made by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent. The same is not considered is the grievance.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to the 3rd respondent. If the 3rd respondent is aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, the 3rd respondent is free to review petition before this Court.

4. Since the limited prayer of the petitioner is only for a consideration of representation, I think that prayer can be allowed, on condition that while deciding the matter, notice should be given to the 3rd respondent also.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment (ii) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition with Exhibits before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

(iii) I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit, and the 2nd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

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