Local Government Laws

The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, frequently disposes of appeals filed against demolition orders not on merits, but by setting aside the Secretary's order on purely technical or procedural grounds, such as absence of a provisional order or notice under Section 235W(1)/(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, or the corresponding Section 406(1)/(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994) and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

When a local government receives a complaint or finds that a building owner has erected an unauthorised building in violation of the building permit and building rules, it often invokes its demolition power under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 — but does so in haste, without following the prescribed procedure such as mandatory provisional notice, personal hearing, and drafting it ignoring the basic principles of natural justice.

The Kerala High Court, in Renjini K.K. v. Mannancherry Grama Panchayat & Ors. [2026:KER:33874], has reiterated that quasi-judicial tribunals cannot dispose of appeals through cryptic conclusions devoid of reasoning, holding that every adjudicatory authority must record clear reasons reflecting application of mind.

In order to check the rise of arbitrary demolition of building structures, the Supreme Court, in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors [2024 INSC 86], issued comprehensive, nationwide directives governing the demolition of properties. The ruling reinforces the rule of law, ensuring that punitive demolitions cannot be done bye passing constitutional safeguards.

The High Court of Kerala, in Gopinath R v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions ([2026: KER: 44156]), observed that Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, empowers a Grama Panchayat to cut or remove any tree, branch, portion, or fruit if it is likely to fall and endanger any person, structure, or cultivation.

Under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 too), it is the duty of the local government to cut and remove trees situated dangerously — as reiterated by the High Court of Kerala in C.J. Mathews v. District Collector, Ernakulam [2026: KER: 10344].

In Sathi Kumari v. The Secretary, Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram and Ors. [2024: KER:47545], the High Court of Kerala clarified that a 'Vacation Notice' issued after a Confirmation Order under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (KMA), cannot be challenged under Section 509(6) of the KMA.

In Shibu and Ors. vs. Sreekumaran and Ors. [MANU/KE/2644/2022, the High Court of Kerala examined whether the civil court had jurisdiction over a suit for a mandatory injunction to demolish a building allegedly constructed in violation of municipal rules and obstructing natural light and air.

In the case of Kumari Mohanam K.P. v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram & Others [MANU/KE/4276/2019], the High Court of Kerala clarified the mandatory steps that municipal authorities must follow before demolishing a structure.

In Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural [2025:KER:58982], the High Court of Kerala observed that when a duly constituted Grama Panchayat is exercising its statutory functions, no individual or mob has the authority to obstruct those functions by taking the law into their own hands.