In a contempt case challenging compliance with a 17.11.2015 judgment regarding removal of encroachments over a PWD road, the Court found that while a dispute existed regarding the extent of removal, the judgment had been complied with and dismissed the contempt petition.
The contempt case is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.796 OF 2016(S) IN WP(C). 31093/2015
AGAINST THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2015 IN WPC 31093/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
THOMAS K.L, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O KANICHAI VEETTIL LONAPPAN, POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, EDAKULAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS/2ND RESPONDENT:
1 SRI.SATHYAN, AGED ABOUT 50, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR, 680 120.
*ADDL.R 2 JEESON JOSE, AGED ABOUT 45, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR, 680 120.
*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/10/2019 IN IA.2/2019.
*ADDL.R 3 POOMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POOMANGALAM P.O., TRISSUR DISTRICT-680688.
*IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 22/11/2019 IN IA 4/19.
BY ADVS. SMT.SHANIMOL SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.JAGADEESH, SC, POOMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR SRI.DHANIL MR, GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.796 OF 2016
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of December 2020
This contempt case is arising from the judgment of this Court, dated 17.11.2015, in W.P.(C)No.31093 of 2015.
over the PWD road has been removed.
have to be removed. I am not able to going to the disputed question of fact as above. As of now, I am of the view that the judgment have been complied with. If the petitioner is
Con.Case(C).No.796 OF 2016
-3-
not satisfied with identification or removal, he is free to
take up the matter in an appropriate manner.
Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.
Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
akv
Con.Case(C).No.796 OF 2016
-4-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE(a) JUDGMENT DT 17.11.2015 IN W.P. (C)31093/2015.
ANNEXURE(b) COPY OF THE SKETCH AND PLAN PREPARED BY THE MUKUNDAPRUAM TALUK SURVEYOR.
ANNEXURE(c) NOTICE DATED 22.3.2016. ANNEXURE(d) REPLY FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DT 2/4/2016.
ANNEXURE(e) LAWYER NOTICE DATED 13.8.2019. ANNEXURE(f) JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2019 IN WP(c)29185/16. ANNEXURE(g) PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE EXTEND OF ENCROACHMENTS.
ANNEXURE(h) PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE EXTEND OF ENCROACHMENTS.
EXHIBITS ALONG WITH I.A.NO.5 OF 2019:
ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TAHSILDAR AND THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ALONG WITH THE COPY OF INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE SHEET DATED 4.1.2020.
ANNEXURE C THE TRUE COLOURED COPY OF THE ANNEXURE (b) SKETCH PRODUCED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR.
ANNEXURE D PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON 4.1.2020 SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENTS.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment dated 17.11.2015 in W.P.(C)No.31093 of 2015 regarding encroachment removal was complied with.
If discrepancy exists in encroachment removal, whether to treat judgment as complied.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THOMAS K.L
SRI.SATHYAN
JEESON JOSE
POOMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
