Disposed

Nalinikutty Amma v. Mini Antony

Kerala HC2 Aug 2012Con.Case(C)/292/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case for alleged disobedience of a writ order directing eviction of encroachers from a puramboke pathway, the court accepted the respondents' affidavit and survey sketch confirming complete eviction. It recorded the case closed as the petitioner's claims were dispelled by the new evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed on basis of affidavit and sketch showing full compliance with eviction order.

Nalinikutty Amma Vs Mini Antony — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012/11TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 292 of 2012 (S) IN WPC/23249/2007

¶6

-------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.23249/2007 DATED 12-03-2008

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. NALINIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 71 YEARS

¶9

W/O.LATE MADAVAN PILLAI, PUTHUPARAMBU VEEDU

¶10

VAZHAPALLY WEST, THURUTHY.P.O., CHANGANASSERY.

¶11

2. GEETHAMMA, AGED 40 YEARS

¶12

D/O.NALINIKUTTY AMMA, PUTHUPARAMBU VEEDU

¶13

VAZHAPALLY WEST, THURUTHY.P.O., CHANGANASSERY.

¶14

3. SREELATHA, AGED 32 YEARS D/O.NALINIKUTTY AMMA, PUTHUPARAMBU VEEDU VAZHAPALLY WEST, THURUTHY.P.O., CHANGANASSERY.

¶15

4. AMBILYMOL, AGED 29 YEARS

¶16

D/O.NALINIKUTTY AMMA, PUTHUPARAMBU VEEDU

¶17

VAZHAPALLY WEST, THURUTHY.P.O., CHANGANASSERY.

¶18

5. PRESOBH KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS

¶19

S/O.NALINIKUTTY AMMA, PUTHUPARAMBU VEEDU

¶20

VAZHAPALLY WEST, THURUTHY.P.O., CHANGANASSERY.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.GLEN ANTONY SMT.M.VANAJA

¶22

RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

1. MINI ANTONY

¶24

(AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS), D/O.ANTONY

¶25

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶26

2. P.M.JACOB

¶27

(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS)

¶28

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM.

¶29

3. DALIS GEORGE

¶30

(AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS), S/O.GEORGE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶31

COC NO.292/12

¶32

-2-

¶33

4. APPACHANKUTTY @ XAVIER

¶34

S/O.PAPPACHAN, MARANGATTU.P.O., THURUTHI

¶35

CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶36

5. ANTONY JOSEPH @ BIJU

¶37

S/O.JOSEPH, KARINGADA HOUSE, P.O.THURUTHY

¶38

CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶39

6. SASIDHARAN @ SASI S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KEESHAMPANADU, P.O.THURUTHY CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶40

BY ADV. SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.SOYUZ

¶41

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

COC NO.292/12

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶45

ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2007.

¶46

ANNEXURE II-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2008.

¶47

ANNEXURE III-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.01.2012.

¶48

ANNEXURE IV-TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 20.01.2012.

¶49

ANNEXURE V-TRUE COPY OF THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES BELONGING TO RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6.

¶50

ANNEXURE VI-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE TO POLICE DT.

¶51

ANNEXURE VII-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE WEEL AND THE CARCASS ARE TOGETHER.

¶52

ANNEXURE VIII-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AFTER THE PERSONS LEFT LEAVING BEHIND THEIR FLAGS.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Contempt Case NO. 292 OF 2012

¶57

========================

¶58

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2012

¶59

J U D G M E N T

¶60

By Annexure II judgment in WP(C) No. 23249/07, this Court ordered implementation of Annexure I order, which was marked in that writ petition as Ext.P11. That order of the District Collector passed in a revision filed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act directed eviction of the party respondents in the writ petition from the puramboke pathway in Sy.No.112/3 of Vazhappally West Village. It is complaining of disobedience of the aforesaid direction, this contempt petition has been filed.

¶61

Irrespective of the contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the contempt petition is barred by limitation and therefore is not maintainable, in the affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, it is stated thus:

¶62

“3. It is submitted that on receipt of Annexure

¶63

A2 judgment notices were issued by the Tahsildar, Changanassery to three encroachers who are respondents 4 to 6, to vacate the road puramboke. Sri.Antony Joseph and Sri.Appachankutty were evicted on 26.05.2008. Another encroacher Sri.Sasi, Keezhampanattu had constructed part of his residential building by encroaching road

¶64

COC.No.292/12

¶65

:2 :

¶66

puramboke and obstructed the eviction proceedings. Therefore, another notice under section 11 of Kerala Land Conservancy Act was served to 6^th respondent Sri.Sasi Keezhampanattu to vacate the road puramboke on or before 5.7.2010. The Additional Tahsildar, Changanassery in his report NO.B3.5273/02 dated 29.12.10 has reported that the land encroached in Sy.No.112/3 of Vazhappally (W) Village by 6^th respondent Sri.Sasi Keezhampanattu had been completely evicted and the evicted land had been handed over to Vazhappally Grama Panchayat authorities on 29.12.10. Thus, it may be seen that this respondent had fully complied with the direction Annexure A2 judgment.”

¶67

Learned Government Pleader has also submitted that

¶68

after the aforesaid affidavit was filed, the land in question was once again inspected and that a sketch has been prepared by the Surveyor, which also indicates that the encroachments in the puramboke pathway has been fully evicted.

¶69

In the light of the above stand taken by the respondents, this contempt petition is closed recording the aforesaid submission.

¶70

I also record the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that a copy of the sketch will be given to the counsel for the petitioners.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶73

Nalinikutty Amma v. Mini Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalinikutty Amma v. Mini Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavitran Vs the Secretary, Rta, Kasaragode

Velu Vasudevan Vs the Secretary to Govt.

P.T.Muhammad Vs Khadeeja

P.T.Ahammad Shameer Vs Khadeeja