Dismissed

Thomas Stephen, v. the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC15 Mar 2019WP(C)/4119/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed regarding encroachment and illegal constructions, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. Recording the submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn without prejudice to future legal contentions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, leaving open the legal and factual contentions for appropriate proceedings.

Thomas Stephen, Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4119 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THOMAS STEPHEN, AGED 62 YEARS

¶8

T.C.NO.30/1026-1, CKRRA 170, MOSQUE LANE, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.SIJU RAJAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶12

2 DEVAKI RAJAN, T.C.NO.30/1026, KAMALAKSHI MANDIRAM, MOSQUE LANE, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 4119 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of 5 cents of property comprised in survey No.217/A-4-5 in Vanchiyoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 27.06.1966, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to implement Exts.P4 and P6; and a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to demolish the illegal constructions effected by the 2^nd respondent by encroaching into puramboke land.

¶19

On 12.02.2019, when this writ petition came for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Corporation was directed to get instructions.

¶20

Today, when this case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petition, since the first respondent Corporation has

¶21

WP(C).No. 4119 of 2019

¶22

passed another order, which the petitioner proposes to challenge in appropriate proceedings.

¶23

In such circumstances, recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, and without prejudice to his right to challenge the order stated to have been passed by the first respondent Corporation, at appropriate proceedings.

¶24

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶25

bng/16.03.19

Thomas Stephen, v. the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Stephen, v. the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abid M.a., Vs Karassery Grama Panchayat

P.a.Sabu @ Subusudhan Vs the Senior Geologist

Annamma Alex Vs District Collector Ernakulam

Hamza Vs Nilambur Municipality

Celin Joseph Vs the District Collector

Dr.P.Kuriakose Vs the Piravom Municipality