Disposed

Mosque Lane Residents Association v. M/Vijayanand

Kerala HC12 Oct 2010Con.Case(C)/1043/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case Arising from failure to implement an undertaking to complete land acquisition proceedings for road widening within six months, the High Court found no willful disobedience and extended the deadline to one year based on the respondents affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed; acquisition proceedings shall be finalised within one year.

Mosque Lane Residents Association Vs M/Vijayanand — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1043 of 2010(S) -------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.594/2008 Dated 12/03/2008

¶6

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶7

¶8

MOSQUE LANE RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4:

¶11

¶12

M.VIJAYANAND, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

SANJAY KAUL, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001..

¶14

SMT.NANTHINI C.N., AGE & HUSBAND'S/ FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA) CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001..

¶15

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶18

¶19

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1043 OF 2010

¶20

- - - - Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2010

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶23

Lapse on the part of the respondent with regard to the implementation of the verdict passed in WA No.594 of 2008, is the subject matter of this Contempt of Court Case. The sequence of events is as follows:

¶24

In connection with the widening of the Kesavadasapuram Mosque road, a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued; which however was challenged by some residents of the locality by filing W.P.(C) No. 34597 of 2007. It was further dismissed by this Court. In the said circumstance, the petitioner Association preferred W.P. (C) No.4330 of 2008 for appropriate reliefs, wherein also interference was declined as per Ext.R1(b) verdict, holding that there was no right for the 'Association', to defend the case as projected therein. Against the said verdict, W.A. No. 594 of 2008 was preferred by the petitioner, which was disposed of,

¶25

COC No. 1043 of 2010

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

recording the 'undertaking' given by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, that the acquisition proceedings for widening of the road would be completed within six months. The petitioner submits that no positive steps have been taken to give effect to the 'undertaking' given before this Court.

¶28

The 1^st respondent has filed an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances; the different rounds of litigation and the steps taken on the part of the respondents in connection with the proposed widening of the road. It has been stated in the said affidavit that earnest steps have been taken to finalise the acquisition proceedings and that necessary instructions have been issued to all concerned. The 1^st respondent has stated in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit that a further period of 10 months is necessary and at any rate it would be completed within one year. Reference is also made to the communication issued by the Corporation in this regard.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the

¶30

COC No. 1043 of 2010

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

respondents, so as to proceed with further steps. Accordingly, the Contempt of Court Case is closed, making it clear that the proceedings in furtherance to the affidavit filed before this Court shall be finalised within a period of 'one year'.

¶33

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.

¶34

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.

¶35

ttb

Mosque Lane Residents Association v. M/Vijayanand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mosque Lane Residents Association v. M/Vijayanand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt of India Vs P.C.Paul

Pratiksh a.Asheer Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh Soman Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Ritha Thomas @ Annie Rithakarukaparambil Vs N.v.Sobhana

Aswathy.P Vs State of Kerala

V.T.Reghunath Vs State of Kerala and Others