In a contempt proceeding, the Court held that since the petitioner in the related writ petition sought an injunction, the proper remedy is to challenge the injunction order rather than pursuing contempt for non-compliance. The contempt case was closed accordingly.
Contempt case was closed.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930
Con.Case(C).No. 157 of 2008(S) -----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6554/2007 Dated 20/06/2007 ....................
PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------
NABEESATHU BEEVI, D/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 39, RESIDING AT ABIDA MANZIL, MOOLABHAGAM, PALLIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS: 3RD RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------
DAVID JOHN, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERSRI. I.V. PRAMOD
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
Contempt Case (C). No. 157 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges non-compliance with my directions in Annexure-A2 judgment. In Annexure-A2 judgment, I directed
the Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezhu to take proceedings for eviction from the Government land after issuing notice to the petitioner in the writ petition and all others who are stated to be encroachers, giving them an opportunity of being heard and passing a final order as contemplated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, deciding as to whether anybody has encroached into the land in question and whether they are to be evicted or not. Subsequently, the petitioner in the writ petition filed a suit before the Sub Court, Attingal and obtained an injunction order against his eviction. Therefore, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition could not take any further proceedings in the matter. In the above circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging the injunction order, in which direction the petitioner has already
C.O.C.No.157/08
2
initiated appropriate proceedings before this Court. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue that proceedings, this Contempt Case is closed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
Nabeesathu Beevi
David John
S. Siri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
