IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 181 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28668/2009 DATED 17/12/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- A. ABDUL LETHEEF, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, PULIMOOTTIL, ANARY, CHERUTHANA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS/3RD & 6TH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RASHEEDA BEEVI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A. RAILWAY, KAYAMKULAM. 2. T.K. CHANDRAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. PERMANENT WAY ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SRI.ANTO THOMAS, SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. 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