Dismissed

V.S.Sadasivan Nair v. Harigopal

Kerala HC16 Jul 2019Con.Case(C)/774/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt case was filed alleging violation of directions to evict a respondent occupying government property. The court dismissed the case, finding no deliberate or wilful contempt as action was initiated under the Act despite administrative hurdles regarding rehabilitation.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is dismissed as there was no deliberate or wilful non-compliance by the respondents.

V.S.Sadasivan Nair Vs Harigopal — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.774 of 2019 IN WP(C). 7707/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7707/2017 of HIGHCOURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

V.S.SADASIVAN NAIR AGED 64 YEARS

¶9

S/O. SANKARA PILLAI, RAJAGIRI, VALLARATHALA, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 507

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.K.K.RAZIA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 HARIGOPAL

¶13

AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, THE SECRETARY, KUNNATHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUNNATHUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 504

¶14

2 K. AJIKUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, NEMOM BLOCK PANCHAYAT, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020.

¶15

3 C. NANDAKUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, MALAYANKEEZHU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MALAYANKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 571

¶16

SMT.RASHMI.K.M.,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Con.Case(C).No.774 of 2019

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner

¶22

complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 3.9.2018 is not complied with.

¶23

Apparently the case projected by the

¶24

petitioner was that 5^th respondent in the writ

¶25

petition is occupying Government property and no action is initiated by the respondents in order to

¶26

evict the 5^th respondent. However, the writ petition

¶27

was disposed of since learned counsel for 2^nd

¶28

respondent pointed out that, already action is initiated in accordance with section 69(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and proceedings are also

¶29

pending. According to the petitioner, no action was taken thereafter and therefore, it is violative of the directions issued by this court.

¶30

Affidavits are placed by respondents 2 & 3 and

¶31

from the counter affidavit of the 2^nd respondent, it is evident that, requisition was made under section

¶32

69(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as early as on 7.4.2016, however, the requisition was returned by

¶33

Con.Case(C).No.774 of 2019 3

¶34

the District Collector as per Ext.R2(b) order dated 2/11/2017 pointing out that, the requisition cannot be implemented against the 5^th respondent as 5^th respondent and her mother are residing in the building and if they are evicted from the house, rehabilitation will have to be undertaken since they are in utter penurious condition.

¶35

In that view of the matter, I am of the

¶36

considered opinion that, it cannot be said that, respondents have not taken any action deliberately and wilfully in accordance with the directives contained in the judgment, and there is any contempt committed by the respondents so as to proceed against them. Therefore, the contempt case fails,

¶37

accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

Smv 16.7.2019

JUDGE

Con.Case(C).No.774 of 2019

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

ANNEXURE 1	CERTIFIED COPY 03.09.2018 IN	OF THE W.P.(C)	JUDGMENT DT. NO .7707/2017
ANNEXURE 2	RECEIPT ISSUED 06.09.2018 (1S 7709/17).	BY THE T PAGE	2ND RESPONDENT DATED OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
ANNEXURE A3	RECEIPT ISSUED 06.09.2018.	BY THE	3RD RESPONDENT DATED

¶47

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT R1(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/02/2016 ISSUED IN FORM 24 IN ACCORDANE WITH S.69(2)
EXHIBIT R1(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE THAHSILDAR (RR) DATED 28/02/2017
EXHIBIT R1(C):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/09/2018, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
ANNEXURE R2(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DATED 7.4.2016 FORWARDED BY THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, NEMOM
ANNEXURE R2(b)	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

V.S.Sadasivan Nair v. Harigopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Sadasivan Nair v. Harigopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. K. Aadithya Varma Raja Vs Mohammed Sageer

Santy Mathew, Vs the Director

Narayanan a. Vs the Member Secretary,Ksrrda

P.S. Shameer, Vs State of Kerala

Khadeeja Vs the District Collector

Seenath, Vs the District Collector