Disposed

G.Mukundan Nair v. Dr.Sanjeev Kaul

Kerala HC19 Jul 2011Con.Case(C)/241/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the Division Bench held the respondent government must pay compensation with interest to the petitioner immediately. They clarified payment does not depend on recovering funds from wrong awardees and threatened severe action if the government fails to comply within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The respondent directed to pay the award amount with interest to the petitioner's mother's legal heirs within 30 days.

G.Mukundan Nair Vs Dr.Sanjeev Kaul — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 241 of 2011(S)

¶6

-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 25/02/2010 IN WPC.1399/2010 ....................

¶7

PETITIONER(S): / PETITIONER ---------------

¶8

G.MUKUNDAN NAIR, S/O.LATE CHELLAMMA PILLAI, AGED 69 YEARS, KIZHAKKE PULIYILATHARA HOUSE, VALLUVEETTUMURI, KAVADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN SRI.R.S.MADHU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT ---------------

¶11

MR.SANJEEV KAUL, AGED 40, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.

¶12

MS.T.B.RAMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

COC NO.241/2011

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25/02/2010 IN WP(C) NO.1399/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶18

ANNEXURE AII : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 09/02/2011 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

ANNEXURE A11(a) : COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶24

COC No.241 of 2011

¶25

Dated, this the 19^th day of July, 2011

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶28

On being satisfied that contempt is prima facie committed by the respondent, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench and we have heard the matter.

¶29

Adjoining properties belonging to two persons were acquired for expansion of the Trivandrum Museum. Separate LARs were filed by both the land owners for claiming compensation. However the revenue authorities deposited the award amount for the entire land i.e. the amount covered by both the LAR cases in one LAR and the same was released by the Sub Court to the decree holder in LAR No.389/94. Consequently, the land owner in that case, who was entitled to compensation only for 2.84 ares of land, was paid compensation for 9.22 ares, which includes 6.38 ares of the

¶30

COC No.241/2011

¶31

-2-

¶32

petitioner's mother's property.

¶33

The learned Single Judge while deciding the matter directed the Government to pay compensation to the petitioner and so also gave freedom to the Government to recover the amount from the awardees in LAR No.389/94. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government has filed application before the Sub Court for recovery of the amount from the awardees in LAR No.389/94, to whom wrongly the compensation for 6.38 ares of land was paid. While the Government is free to proceed with recovery through Sub Court, Government is bound to pay the amount with interest to the petitioner, is the decision taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any justification for delaying the payment which need not wait for recovery from the awardees in LAR No.389/94 to whom payment was wrongly made. We also clarify that the eligibility for payment to the legal heirs of the petitioner's mother, who is the awardee in LAR No.35/95, will not depend on recovery from the awardees in LAR

¶34

COC No.241/2011

¶35

-3-

¶36

No.389/94 to whom payment was wrongly made.

¶37

However, we give one more chance to the respondent to make payment of the award amount with interest to the petitioner's mother's legal heirs, who will approach the District Collector with this judgment within 30 days from receipt of this judgment, failing which the petitioner can make application for revival of the contempt case after 30 days. We make it clear that if contempt is revived and proceeded against, severe action will be taken against the respondent.

¶38

With this observation, we close the Contempt of Court

¶39

case.

¶40

G.Mukundan Nair v. Dr.Sanjeev Kaul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mukundan Nair v. Dr.Sanjeev Kaul

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs Sri.T.K.Sanalkumar, Vaduthala, Kochi

Cadbury India Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

T.B.Valsala Vs Union of India and Others

Union of India Vs v.K.Pushpavally

M.Ramasamy Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs P.K.Chandran