Disposed

Namitha D., v. Radhika P.R.

Kerala HC22 Jan 2019Con.Case(C)/32/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a contempt case filed for alleged non-compliance of directions in W.P.(C). 28108/2018 regarding a property survey. Respondents admitted compliance had been delayed but were not negligent. The court disposed of the contempt case while reserving the petitioner's liberty to challenge the survey. quality: thin

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to challenge the outcome of the survey, measurement and demarcation process. Contempt case disposed.

Namitha D., Vs Radhika P.R. — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 32 of 2019 IN WP(C). 28108/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28108/2018 of HIGHCOURT

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

NAMITHA D., AGED 38 YEARS D/O.K.I.DAVIS, 'MALIEKAL HOUSE', TLRA 100, CANAL ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682304, NOW RESIDING AT KODANKANDATHU HOUSE, CHETTIPARAMBU, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 RADHIKA P.R., (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ), THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2 THAMPAN PAUL, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

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

¶19

Contempt Case (C).No. 32 of 2019 ==================

¶20

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2019 J U D G M E N T

¶21

The above contempt of court case has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Anx.A judgment dated 21.8.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 28108/2018.

¶22

Heard Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, learned counsel appearing

¶23

for the petitioner and learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶24

Now respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate, but almost identically worded, affidavits dated 21.1.2019 through the learned Government Pleader. Paragraphs 5 to 11 of the affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent reads as follows:

¶25

“5. In deference to the directions of this Hon'ble Court judgment dated 21/08/2018, I issued notice to the affected parties and carried out the survey of the property on 18/01/2019.

¶26

6. On the basis of the survey, I have reported that the 6^th respondent, Smt. Aisha Gopalan possesses 1.21 ares of land in survey No.69/14, 15 pt of Mardu Village and the alleged pathway was within the boundaries of the property mentioned in Doc.No.4018/85 of Tripoonithura SRO and the said pathway was a private pathway. The said pathway in the property of the 6^th respondent is now blocked by the 6^th respondent in the writ petition.

¶27

7. The claim of the petitioner in WP(C) No.28108/18, Smt. Namitha D., is that there is a public pathway along the common boundary of survey No.69/14 and 69/15 and it is alleged by her that the said public pathway is blocked by the 6^th respondent.

¶28

8. From the site inspection and measurement conducted by me, it is revealed that there is no public pathway along the common boundary of survey No.69/14 and 69/15 of Maradu Village. The private pathway situated within the boundaries of the property of the 6^th respondent is now blocked by her but it cannot be treated as encroachment since the said portion is within the boundaries of the property described in Doc. No.4018/85 of Tripoonithura SRO.

¶29

C.O.C.32/19 - : 3 :-

¶30

Moreover, civil suit as O.S. No.53/2014 is filed by Smt. Sudha Sudheerkumar and Sri. Sudheerkumar against Smt. Aisha Gopalan seeking prohibitory injunction claiming easementary rights over the pathway by prescription. The said suit is still pending.

¶31

9. As there is no puramboke land/public pathway along the common boundary of survey No.69/14 and 69/15 of Maradu Village, the enclosure of the property cannot be treated as encroachment. It is submitted that the issue is regarding blocking of pathway in a private property, which is now under consideration of the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Since there is a civil dispute and it has to be resolved through a competent Civil Court.

¶32

10. It is humbly submitted that since the State of Kerala witnessed the most devastating flood in August 2018, the entire staff of my office were assigned various rescue, relief and rehabilitation work during the flood and thereafter. All the routine work of the office of the respondents were interrupted heavily since the entire staff including the survey staff were deployed for the various relief and rehabilitation process during the post flood time. Hence the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.28108/18 could not be complied within the time limit stipulated. It is most humbly submitted that there is no willful negligence or latches on the part of respondent in complying the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.

¶33

11. I have great respect to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. It is only because of the reasons mentioned above, delay has caused in complying with the order in time. I tender my unqualified apology in the above matter.”

¶34

Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to challenge the outcome and measurement process in the manner known to law and that with the abovesaid liberty, the above contempt of court case could be closed. In the light of the abovesaid developments, it is ordered that liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the outcome of the survey, measurement and demarcation process. Reserving such liberty, the above contempt of court will stand disposed of.

¶35

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

sdk+

¶37

C.O.C.32/19

¶38

: 4 :-

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.28108/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶42

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE DESPATCH OF ANNEXURE A JUDGMENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶43

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE DESPATCH OF ANNEXURE A JUDGMENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Namitha D., v. Radhika P.R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namitha D., v. Radhika P.R.

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

P.M.Abdulla Haji Vs the District Registrar

Philipose Thomas,(P.Thomas) Vs State of Kerala

Leela Vs State of Kerala

K. Purushan, Vs the District Collector

Abdul Jaleel Vs Special Thahsildar

K.C.Surendran @ Surendran Perinjery Vs Union of India