Authorities must pursue encroachment proceedings and investigate allegations against similarly situated persons.

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 4 September 2024 issued by the third respondent concerning alleged unauthorised construction and encroachment on odai poramboke land, and sought consideration of her representation dated 12 September 2024

The eighth respondent, a relative of the petitioner, had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No. 17975 of 2022 alleging the petitioner’s encroachment and unauthorised construction. By order dated 24 November 2023, the Court directed the Municipality to proceed in accordance with law; the petitioner’s review application was dismissed on 14 June 2024

The petitioner also alleged that the eighth respondent had encroached on the same land, but that no action had been taken against her

1. Whether the respondents should proceed with lock-and-seal action against the petitioner concerning the alleged unauthorised construction and encroachment on odai poramboke land

2. Whether the allegation that the eighth respondent had also encroached on odai poramboke land and constructed unauthorisedly required an enquiry

The Court did not identify or discuss any specific statutory provision, legal test, or precedent as the basis for its decision

It directed that proceedings against the petitioner be taken “in accordance with law” and ordered an enquiry into the allegation against the eighth respondent

The Court noted the petitioner’s challenge to the notice and her contention that action had been taken only against her despite allegations against the eighth respondent

Rather than quashing the notice or determining whether either party had encroached, the Court directed the second respondent to initiate lock-and-seal proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law and separately to enquire into the allegation against the eighth respondent

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed