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) 13550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
P.L. JACOB – Appellant
Versus
CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1018 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN
For the Respondents: SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, R3, SRI.P.C.GOPINATH, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR, SHRI.RAFEEK. V.K., SHRI.ASIF, SMT.P.PARVATHY, SMT.SURYA P SHAJI, SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY, SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED, SHRI.ELDHO.N.MONCY

The Municipality is obligated to enforce compliance with its orders regarding unauthorized construction within a stipulated timeframe.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a direction for demolition of an illegal construction by the 3rd respondent under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, following which the Chalakudy Municipality initially issued a notice. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with the issued order. The court mandated implementation of this order within two months unless modified. The court emphasized adherence to the law in resolving the matter.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks enforcement of demolition order. (Para 1)
2. court hears responses from all parties. (Para 2)
3. court mandates compliance within two months. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate legal steps to demolish the illegal construction made by the 3rd respondent in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules , 2019. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on the complaint preferred by the petitioner, the respondent-Municipality has issued Ext.P2 order directing the 3rd respondent to remove the unauthorised construction undertaken by him. The grievance of the petitioner is that till date Ext.P2 order has not been implemented by the respondent-Municipality.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents as well.

3. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

(i) Respondents 1 and 2 shall take steps to implement Ext.P2 order, if the same has not been modified or interfered in any of the proceedings or if the direction in Ext.P2 has not been complied with by the 3rd respondent, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

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