IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 181 of 2010(S)
1. ABDUL LETHEEF, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RASHEEDA BEEVI,
... Respondent
2. T.K. CHANDRAN
For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.V.SANTHARAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :06/04/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Con.Case(C).No.181 of 2010-S
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010.
Judgment
1.The petitioner filed WP(C).28668/2009 seeking to
quash Exts.P6 and P6(a). Ext.P6 is a notice under
the Land Acquisition Act and Ext.P6(A) is a
notification issued under that Act. The said
notification No.8686/A2/2009/Tran. issued through
the Secretary to Government of Kerala in the
Transport (A) Department was for acquisition of
lands described therein for the purpose of
improving the visibility of Unmanned Level
Crossing No. 113 in view of safety of road users
of Haripad – Cheruthana Railway line at Haripad
and Cheruthana villages of Karthikappally Taluk
in Alappuzha district. When that writ petition
came up for consideration, the Railways had
placed on record a statement relating to that
acquisition producing Ext.R7(a). Accordingly, it
was pointed out by the learned standing counsel
COC181/10 -: 2 :-
for the Railways when the matter came up for
consideration on 17.12.2009, that the Southern
Railway is acquiring land only by a width of
three meters and not seven meters as alleged by
the petitioner. Recording that statement,
including Ext.R7 sketch, the writ petition was
ordered.
2.This contempt of court case is filed on the
premise that after the issuance of the judgment,
there was an attempt to mark land having width of
20 meters thereby violating the judgment.
3.The first respondent Special Tahsildar(L.A.),
Railways, has filed an affidavit refuting the
allegation. It is pointed out that the writ
petition related only to the aforesaid
acquisition whereas the proceedings for
acquisition which is now being carried out is one
for the purpose of railway track doubling between
Haripad and Ambalapuzha and that the land to be
acquired for such purpose is being identified
COC181/10 -: 3 :-
pursuant to a joint inspection of the Railways
and Revenue authorities. The land to be acquired
for that purpose from Haripad to Ambalapuzha, is
on the eastern side of the existing railway line
and a portion of the petitioner’s property has
also to be acquired. A different set of
notifications under the LA Act other than those
produced along with the writ petition relates to
the acquisition for doubling process of
Kayamkulam – Haripad railway line.
4.The second respondent in this contempt of court
case, who was not issued with any notice in the
writ petition, has clearly stated that the
allegations against him of having been present at
site etc. are false in as much as even long
before the institution of the writ petition, he
was working in Thrissur and obviously, therefore,
the Railways had not even represented him, though
he was impleaded in the writ petition by name. He
has also produced materials to show that he was
on duty otherwise, at the time and date on which
COC181/10 -: 4 :-
the alleged incident had occurred.
5.With the aforesaid materials, the learned counsel
for the petitioner on the strength of the reply
affidavit, as also the contempt of court case and
other materials on record, states that the entire
exercise of the first respondent Tahsildar is a
malafide one generated by malice, owing to the
petitioner taking up the cause of the need to
repair a particular road in the locality and the
first respondent is, thereafter, bent upon
ensuring that the petitioner is put to loss,
including by deprivation of property.
6.The jurisdiction in entertaining and considering
an application under the Contempt of Courts Act
is limited. All that is relevant is as to whether
there is material to hold that there is wilful
disobedience in obeying the judgment. With this
in mind, adverting to the judgment, it is to be
noted that all that has been done by this Court
was to record the submission of the Railways that
COC181/10 -: 5 :-
in relation to the acquisition which was subject
matter of the writ petition, the land required
for the Railway would be only three meters. That
writ petition did not deal with any other
proposal of the Railways, including the proposal
for doubling of the line or any land for such
purpose. It is inappropriate for this Court to
hold that the Railway will have to be duty bound
and the Tahsildar has to be told to stand by the
judgment, including in relation to any
acquisition for the doubling of the railway line,
which was, obviously, not subject matter of the
writ petition, though it may be true that the
petitioner may have his remedies elsewhere.
For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing
anything on the merits or demerits of the
petitioner’s claim that the acquisition in
relation to doubling is against his interest, I
do not find any ground to hold that the
respondents are liable to be proceeded against
under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
COC181/10 -: 6 :-
Act in relation to Annexure-I judgment. This
contempt of court case is accordingly closed
without prejudice to the petitioner’s right, if
any, in relation to the acquisition for the
purpose of doubling of the railway line.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/1204