The High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ petition filed by a petitioner complaining that respondents were widening a road by trespassing into her and others' property without acquiring or obtaining surrender.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2012/9TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 5743 of 2012 (P)
PETITIONER(S):
PADMA KUMARI,, AGED 50 YEARS W/O LATE. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, GOKULAM MANJUMMEL 683501 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.TITTO THOMAS SRI.K.A.ANI JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ELOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELOOR 683501
*** ADDL.R2 TO R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.03.2012 IN IA NO.4746/12**
*** 2. BASIL K.V., S/O JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS KOIMAKKATTIL (H), NO.493, MANJUMMAL**
*** 3. NAZEER, AGED 65 YEARS, BISMILLA COTTAGE HOUSE NO.489 MANJUMMEL * 4. SUSAN JOHN W/O JOY, CHALUVILAYIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 492, MANJUMMAL * 5. XAVIER M.A.,AGED 55 YEARS, MADATHIL PARAMBIL (H) HOUSE NO. 488, MANJUMMAL.**
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) BY ADV. SRI.R.V.RAHUL BY ADV. SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN BY ADV. SMT.N.ANJALI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SD
WPC NO. 5743/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXT. R1(c) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ESTIMATE APPROVED FOR THE WORK
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
SD
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.5743 OF 2012-P
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Complaining that the respondents are attempting to widen a road trespassing into the property belonging to the petitioner and other co-owners without acquiring or obtaining surrender of the property, the writ petition was filed for appropriate relief.
In view of the above the writ petition is misconceived and for that reason the writ petition is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No.
:2 :
PADMA KUMARI
ELLOOR MUNICIPALITY
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
