Dismissed

Mercy Abraham v. Beena a.R., the Taluk Surveyor

Kerala HC9 Jan 2012Con.Case(C)/406/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the petitioner complained of non-compliance with a prior Writ judgment requiring a survey sketch. The Court noted the respondent filed a sketch but found no merit in the petitioner’s specific objection without reviewing the plan itself. The judge dismissed the complaint, directing the petitioner to challenge the plan separately.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed; the petitioner may challenge the plan appropriately.

Mercy Abraham Vs Beena a.R., the Taluk… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/19TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

COC.No. 406 of 2011 (S) =======================

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.14628/2009 DATED 29-06-2009

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ========================

¶8

MERCY ABRAHAM, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.LATE ABRAHAM, KALAYIL HOUSE, MULAKUZHA P.O., CHENGANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/IST RESPONDENT: =================================

¶11

BEENA.A.R., AGED 45, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE TALUK SURVEYOR, MUKANDHAPURAM,THRISSUR.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASREE

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

COC.NO.406/2011 S

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 27/06/2008 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 14/08/2008 ISSUED TO THASILDHAR, MUKUNTHAPURAM.

¶20

ANNEX.A3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE THASILDHAR, MUKUNTHAPURAM.

¶21

ANNEX.A4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE RDO, THRISSUR.

¶22

ANNEX.A5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14628/2009.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:

¶24

ANNEX.R1: COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶29

Contempt Case (C) No.406 of 2011

¶30

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner complains of non-compliance with

¶33

Annexure-A5 judgment. In Annexure-A5 judgment, the direction is as follows:

¶34

“Having heard learned counsel on both sides, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to take further action pursuant to Ext.P4, complete the measurement and supply the sketch and plan, after notice to all affected parties within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶35

An affidavit has been filed by the respondent along with which a sketch has been produced, which, according to the respondent, is the sketch prepared in accordance with the judgment.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the sketch is wrong as is clear from the affidavit itself.

¶37

I am of opinion that, in such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the plan itself appropriately. Without prejudice to that right, this Contempt Case is closed.

¶38

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶39

acd

Mercy Abraham v. Beena a.R., the Taluk Surveyor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mercy Abraham v. Beena a.R., the Taluk Surveyor

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

N.Asokan Vs K.A. Ratheesh

The General Secretary Vs the Warden Youth Hostel

Aswin Vs Director of Public Instructions, Trivandrum

Sunil Kumar P Vs the Sub Regional Transport Officer

Bilesh v. Vs the Calicut University

Amresh Kumar Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology