Kerala High Court
Girija N vs S.Chandrasekar Ias on 14 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1877 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19288/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
GIRIJA N.
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O.DEVU GOPALAN, VAAMAL HOUSE, NETTUR P.O., KODAVALLI,
THALASSERI, KANNUR - 05.
BY ADVS.
P.C.ANIL KUMAR
MANU.M.THOMAS
HARIDAS K.P.
RESPONDENT:
S.CHANDRASEKAR IAS
AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, COLLECTORATE, THAVAKKARA,
KANNUR, KERALA - 670 002.
BY SRI.K.M.FAIZAL,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1877 of 2021 2
IN WP(C).19288/2020
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of January,2022
This contempt petition is filed basically complaining that the directives
contained in the judgment dated 29th December, 2020, are not complied with.
The direction in the judgment reads thus:
"According to the petitioner, the property situated in
Re.Sy.No.15/15A and a building bearing No.TMC 01/61, both belonging to
her, was acquired under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter called the 'Act 2013'). According to the petitioner,
since there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of the land, the
amount under the Land Acquisition Act is deposited before the Court.
Anyhow, the petitioner has sought reference under Section 64 of the Act
2013, evident from Ext.P6. The sole relief sought for is consideration of
Ext.P6 by the 2nd respondent District Collector, Collectorate, Kannur.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to
dispose of Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner, at the earliest
and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. "
IN WP(C).19288/2020
2. The case of the petitioner is that no orders are passed. An affidavit is
placed before this Court along with an order stating that in compliance with
the directions, an order is passed by the District Collector dated 30.1.2021,
whereby it is stated that petitioner is not entitled to get reference of the
application submitted under section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It
is also stated that petitioner is entitled to only for a rehabilitation
compensation of Rs.30,000/-.
3. In my considered opinion, when an order is passed in compliance with
the simple directions issued to consider the application, that itself would
suffice the situation so far as the direction is concerned. Learned counsel for
petitioner, submitted that Annexure R1(a) order passed by the District
Collector dated 30.1.2021 is an illegal order since compensation on account of
the property is granted in other cases even to a tenant. Anyhow, the District
Collector, as the authority under the Act, 2013 in accordance with the
direction, has considered application and held that petitioner is not entitled to
get reference in contemplation of section 64 of the Act, 2013.
4. In that view of the matter, even if assuming that there is illegality in
the order passed by the District Collector, that cannot be converted as a
IN WP(C).19288/2020
contempt petition and if the petitioner is aggrieved, petitioner shall challenge
the same in accordance with law.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not think there is any
deliberate or contumacious act on the part of the District Collector in
complying with the simple direction issued by this Court to consider an
application pending before the said authority.
Needless to say, contempt petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed,
leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to make any suitable challenge
against the order issued.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
IN WP(C).19288/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(C)NO.19288 OF 2O20 DATED 29.12.2020
