IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 901 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26660/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER:
C.P.MOHAMMED
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED HAJI,
MANAGING PARTNER,
BROTHERS WOOD INDUSTRIES,
ATHIRUMADA, PUTHANATHANI,
KALPAKANCHERRY P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRIC.
BY ADV K.K.SAIDALAVI
RESPONDENT:
DR.ARUN J.O.
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER),
DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), (NH-66),
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 503,
NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
(NH-66), NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683513
SMT.PARVATHY K. - GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 901/2022 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that the respondent, who is the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act), has acted contrary to the directions of this Court, while issuing Annexure A3 order. He imputes that even though this Court had directed the respondent to consider whether the dispute pending in a Civil Court between him and certain others was only as regards the property acquired and not the structure standing thereon and then to disburse the eligible compensation, if so found, he had chosen not to do so, but to rely on an opinion which he appears to have obtained from the District Law Officer, who only informed that it will not be appropriate to disburse compensation solely for the structures, because it is standing on disputed property.
2. The petitioner says that, as is evident from the statements in Annexure A3 itself, the civil dispute between the parties are only with respect to the property, and hence there could not have been any impediment in the compensation with CON.CASE(C) NO. 901/2022 3 respect to structures being given to him; but that the District Law Officer did not even consider this, presumably because he was not aware of the directions of this Court.
3. Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, controverted the afore submissions of Sri.K.K.Saidalavi - learned counsel for the petitioner, saying that the respondent could not have issued any order other than Annexure A3, faced with the legal opinion which he received from the District Law Officer. She thus prayed that this contempt case be closed.
4. I must say that the afore submissions of Smt.Parvathy K. cannot appeal to me in full because, as rightly argued by Sri.K.K.Saidalavi, this Court directed the respondent to verify whether the civil dispute related only to the property and not to the structures thereon. The opinion that he seems to have relied upon from the District Law Officer is that "it will not be appropriate to disburse compensation only for the structures raised in a disputed property" (sic). Obviously this is not what this Court intended and the respondent ought to have obtained CON.CASE(C) NO. 901/2022 4 further clarification from the District Law Officer, based on the observations of this Court in the judgment. This not having been done, I cannot approve Annexure A3.
5. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, Smt.Parvathy K. submitted that if the afore is the view of this Court, then the respondent will reconsider the matter, after obtaining necessary clarifications from the District Law Officer and such other Authority, as to the true nature of the disputes between the parties in the Civil Court.
6. Certainly this is the best way forward for the petitioner also.
Resultantly, I accede to the afore suggestion of Smt.Parvathy K.; and close this contempt case, recording that Annexure A3 will be withdrawn and that a new order in terms with the judgment will be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, all the contentions of the petitioner are left open and he will also be at liberty to approach this Court again with a fresh Contempt of Court case, if the afore CON.CASE(C) NO. 901/2022 5 directions are not complied with.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/23.6 CON.CASE(C) NO. 901/2022 6 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 901/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2021 IN W.P.(C)NO.26660/2021 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION REPORT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT LAW OFFICER DATED 18.2.2022 Annexure-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.