J.C.Bose vs Mijoy Michael
2021 Latest Caselaw 13745 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
   FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
                   CON.CASE(C) NO. 87 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3436/2019 OF HIGH COURT
                           OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

            J.C.BOSE
            AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O. CHEETHANGAN,
            JEERAKKAPPILLY HOUSE,PERUMMALPADY,
            ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 511

            BY ADVS.
            SAIJO HASSAN
            SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
            SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
            SRI.U.M.HASSAN
            SMT.P.PARVATHY
            SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED



RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:

            MIJOY MICHAEL, AGED 46 YEARS,
            S/O. P.M.MICHAEL,SECRETARY,
            ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA,
            KOCHI-682 511

            BY ADV SRI.P.M.BENZIR



THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION    ON   02.07.2021,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 87 OF 2020
                                        -2-




                                  JUDGMENT

This contempt petition is filed complaining

that the directives contained in the judgment

dated 22.02.2019 is not complied with.

2. Infact it was on the basis of the

affidavit filed by the Secretary of the

Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath that the judgment

was rendered. The relevant portion of the judgment

reads thus:-

"2.From the tenor and terms of the pleadings put forth by the petitioner, what I could gather is that, petitioner is apprehensive of forcible entry by the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat into the property of the petitioner and widening an existing road.

3. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit before this court stating that, Panchayat is only intending to maintain the existing road and Panchayat has no intention to encroach into the property of the petitioner as is apprehended.

4. This is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of directing the Grama Panchayat not to make any forcible entry into the property of the petitioner and otherwise than in accordance with law."

CON.CASE(C) NO. 87 OF 2020

3. The contempt petition is filed complaining

that the tarring and maintenance were done

encroaching into the property of the petitioner

and the petitioner has also produced Annexure 2,

which is a proceeding of the Taluk Office, Kochi

dated 19.11.2019 and along with the same a sketch

issued by the First Grade Surveyor, Taluk Office,

Kochi, is also produced, in which it is stated

that an extent of 0.78 ares and 0.28 ares totally

ad measuring 1.06 ares of the property is removed

from the possession of the petitioner for road.

4. Therefore relying upon the said documents

learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously

contented that, the said documents would clearly

establish that the panchayath has encroached into

the property of the petitioner and the tarring was

done.

5. I have heard respective counsel across the

bar and perused the pleadings and materials on CON.CASE(C) NO. 87 OF 2020

record.

6. In my considered opinion, the judgment was

rendered solely on the basis of the undertaking

contained in the affidavit of the panchayath that,

they have no intention to encroach into the

property of the petitioner and do tarring or any

maintenance work. Anyhow petitioner absolutely

relies upon Annexure 2 document and the sketch of

the Taluk office, Kochi, to contend that portion

of the property belonging to the petitioner was

used as road. In my considered view in the sketch

produced by the petitioner itself it is stated

that the tarring or maintenance is done over the

property that is set apart for making the road.

Taking into account to the extent of the property

in possession of the Panchayath, it cannot be said

that the Panchayath has encroached into the

property after the judgment was rendered by this

Court. At the most from the documents produced by CON.CASE(C) NO. 87 OF 2020

the petitioner it could be seen that some property

belonging to the petitioner was set apart for

constructing road. If the petitioner has any claim

over the said property petitioner will have to

approach the competent civil court and secure

necessary reliefs in accordance with law.

I do not think by virtue of the submissions

and the documents produced by the petitioner this

Court can proceed in contempt against the

respondents. In that view of the matter, the

contempt petition is dismissed leaving open the

liberty of the petitioner to approach a competent

civil court, if advised and in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE hmh CON.CASE(C) NO. 87 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 87/2020

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2018 IN W.P(C) NO.3436/2019

ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH WITH COVERING LETTER

RESPONDENT'S NIL ANNEXURE