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) 16833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
GAYATHRI THULASI – Appellant
Versus
THE ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26043 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN, SMT.M.A.ZOHRA, SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN, SMT.SHREEJI R. NAIR
For the Respondents: SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN, SC, SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED

Court mandated municipal authority to verify and address unauthorized constructions under Kerala Municipality Act, ensuring compliance with the law.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to address unauthorized construction by the third respondent, citing violations of the Kerala Municipality Act. The Court, examining past orders and submissions, mandated inspections be conducted to verify compliance with prior orders. The final action should be completed within one month. Findings indicate prevailing issues with unauthorized constructions despite previous compliance claims.

Table of Content
1. petition for action against unauthorized construction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. discussion on compliance and claims of removal. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction of the 3rd respondent made in violation of the Kerala Municipality Act and Building Rules as noticed in Ext.P5 order dated

03.03.2020.

2. A perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that a provisional order has already been issued to the 3rd respondent to remove the unauthorised construction. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that no further action pursuant to the provisional order has been taken by the respondent-

Municipality.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Municipality submits that after the issuance of the provisional order, the 3rd respondent has removed all the encroachments. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner refuted the said submission and submits that the encroachments are still existing in the property.

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

(i) Respondents 1 and 2 shall conduct an inspection in the subject property with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and verify whether the unauthorised constructions have been removed as directed in the provisional order.

(ii) If the removal of construction is not done, further action shall taken to remove the same in accordance with law.

(iii) The proceedings as above shall be finalised within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this 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