R.V.Muhammed vs Pavithran
2022 Latest Caselaw 7467 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 182 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 26903/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

          R.V.MUHAMMED
          AGED 72 YEARS
          S/O.SAIDALI HAJI, SHARIEF MAHAL, RAYAMARAKKAR VEEDU,
          THAIKKAD P.O., GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680
          104.
          BY ADVS.
          P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
          ASWIN KUMAR M J
          SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
          HELEN P.A.
          RENOY VINCENT
          ARUN ROY


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 6 IN WP(C):

    1     PAVITHRAN
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
          NOW WORKING SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION
          GENERAL, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR - 680 020.
    2     S.SUHAS
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
          NOW WORKING AS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BRIDGES
          DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, PREETHI
          BUILDING, MAHAKAVI VAILOPPILLY ROAD, KOCHI - 682
          025.

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                        2



CoC. No. 182 of 2022.




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022.

The petitioner alleges that, in spite of Annexure A

interim order of this Court, attempt is being made by the

respondent to take over 2 cents of land from him.

2. However, the afore submissions of

Sri.P.A.Mohammed Shah, were controverted by

Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar - learned Government Pleader,

saying that only and extent of 0.10 Ares had been taken

over from the petitioner and that this was done even

before Annexure A order was issued; and that,

subsequently, no action has been even attempted.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I close this

Contempt Case; however, leaving liberty to the petitioner

CoC. No. 182 of 2022.

to seek a rehearing if any violation of the afore

undertaking is noticed in future.

Needless to day, therefore, except the area 0.10

Ares, which is stated to have been already taken

possession of and which is covered by the Mahazar

produced before this Court - subject to the right of the

petitioner to challenge its validity or its genuineness in

the writ petition - the respondent shall not enter into

any other extent of the petitioner, without obtaining

further orders from this Court

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Raj/24.06.2022.

CoC. No. 182 of 2022.

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 182/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureA TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 29.11.2021 AnnexureB TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 17.01.2022 AnnexureC A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POST ERECTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.