C.P.Mohammed vs Dr.Arun J.O
2022 Latest Caselaw 7177 Ker

              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

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

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

directions are not complied with.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/23.6

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.