This writ petition challenged an order by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions keeping a demolition order in abeyance. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no prejudice to the petitioner despite the underlying title dispute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012/1ST ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 5545 of 2007 (I)
PETITIONER :
V.N. RAMACHANDRAN, `SANDHYA', ASRAMAM ROAD, NETTAYAM, KACHANI POST TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
RESPONDENT(S):
1. RAJ KUMAR, S/O.SUNDARESAN,
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
R2 BY ADVS. SRI. P.K. MANOJKUMAR, SC SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SC, TVM CORPN. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAFI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
Mn
...2/-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO.5545 OF 2007
===================
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, what is under challenge is Ext.P4, an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.228/06. The Corporation passed an order of demolition of the first floor of a building constructed by the 1st respondent. Against that order, 1st respondent filed appeal before the Tribunal. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P4. In Ext.P4, the Tribunal held that the order of demolition shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of SA 470/03, the subject matter of which involves the property where the building is situated. It is this order which is under challenge.
:2 :
WPC.No.5545/07
the petitioner and the 1st respondent and that in case the title is found in his favour, since there is no finding that the construction in question is against any of the provisions of the rules, the 1st respondent can apply for regularisation of the construction. It was on that basis the Tribunal deferred implementation of the order of demolition till the disposal of the second appeal.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether worth the interference in the order of the Tribunal keeping demolition in abeyance during pending appeal regarding title and regularization.
V.N. RAMACHANDRAN, SANDHYA
RAJ KUMAR
THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM
STATE OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
