Allowed

Adimakutty v. Muhammed Haneesh and Another

Kerala HC10 Jul 2007Con.Case(C)/322/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a contempt petition filed for non-compliance with writ directions to survey land and evict encroachers, the Court found substantial compliance based on affidavits and a commissioner's report. The proceedings were dropped, though liberty to approach the Court again regarding water flow obstruction was reserved.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; liberty reserved to approach the Court once again for appropriate relief if encroachments obstruct free flow of water.

Adimakutty Vs Muhammed Haneesh and Another — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2007 / 19TH ASHADHA 1929

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 322 of 2007(M) -------------------------------------------AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 23.5.2006 IN W.P.(C) NO.7442 OF 2005

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

ADIMAKUTTY, S/O. AMMU, AGED 53 YEARS, ANJUMURI VEETTIL, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD WEST P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶12

¶13

MUHAMMED HANEESH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

MINI ANTONY, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.R.SABU SRI.K.P.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

¶19

Cont.Case (C)No.322 of 2007

¶20

¶21

Dated, this the 10^th day of July, 2007

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

¶24

This Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.7442 of 2005 by its order dated 23^rd May, 2006 had issued the following directions to the respondents in the writ petition. The directions are as under:

¶25

“In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the District Collector, Ernakulam and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi to see that the survey referred to above is completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the respondents will take appropriate action required under law for evicting the encroachers within another three months, in accordance with law.”

¶26

Complaining that the respondents have not carried out the positive directions issued by this Court, the petitioner in the writ petition has filed the present contempt petition.

¶27

The respondents are served and they have entered appearance through their counsel. They have filed their detailed affidavits before this Court. In that they have stated that they have made a survey of the encroachment complained by the petitioner in the writ petition and thereafter have taken effective steps to evict the encroachers.

¶28

Though there is some dispute with regard to the eviction of the socalled encroachers, after going through the report of the Court Commissioner whom we had appointed at the instance of the petitioner and also the affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 2, we are satisfied that there is substantial compliance with the orders and directions issued by this Court while disposing

¶29

¶30

Cont.Case (C)No.322/2007

¶31

of W.P.(C) No.7442 of 2005.

¶32

In view of the above, at present, we need not to have proceeded further with this contempt petition. Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, if he so desires, to approach this Court once over again for appropriate relief, if for any reason some encroachments are there in Vazhakkala – Moolepadom Thodu obstructing the free flow of water.

¶33

In view of the order passed in the contempt petition, the reliefs sought in I.A.Nos.287 and 395 of 2005 need not be considered by this Court. Accordingly they are rejected.

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

( H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

(K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE

¶37

vns

Adimakutty v. Muhammed Haneesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adimakutty v. Muhammed Haneesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.a.K.B.Sadhbhavana Mission Trust Vs Dr.Janakikutty

Fathima Memorial Educational Trust Vs Dr.C.Gopinatha Pillai

Nizhar Rather Vs Aniyan Mathew

Mundakayam Grama Panchayat Vs P.S.Abdul Salam

Vazhikadavu Town Ksheerolpadaka Sangham Vs State of Kerala

Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat Vs Abdul Salam