IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1019 of 2008(S) NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) NO.16958/2006 ATED 21/03/2007 PETITIONER: JOHN.A., 318/24, S/O.KURUVILLA ASWATHY HOUSE, EDAMPADAM ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA PO., ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENT: THAMPY AGED AROUND 50, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA GRENERAL) COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CONT. CASE (C) NO. 1019 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd July, 2008 JUDGMENT This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging that the respondent has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed and violated Annexure A2 judgment dated 21.3.2007 and thereby attempted to demolish the shop room in question. The respondent has filed an affidavit dated 16.7.2008, wherein it is stated as follows: “3. It is also submitted that the petitioner in this case filed WPC.No.16958/2008 before this Honourable Court against the acquisition. The Requisitioning Authority, Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Division, Ernakulam filed an affidavit on 12.3.2007 stating that the shop room on the extreme side occupied by the petitioner could exempted from the acquisition and more than 50% of the shop room occupied by another petitioner K.M.Xavier can be left out of the acquisition. Recording the above submission this Honourable Court close the above writ petition. Accordingly, the Requisitioning Authority limited the area of the acquisition to 0.64 Ares (64 Sq.M) instead of the original area of 1.03 Ares proposed earlier in full compliance with the judgment of this Honourable Court. The room occupied by the petitioner was fully excluded from the acquisition and more than 90% of the shop room occupied by Sri.K.M.Xavier was also excluded from the acquisition, in view of the undertaking recorded by this Honourable Court in the above said judgment. A true copy of the portion of the area of the building which is included and exempted under the acquisition is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1. The land owner has handed over the possession of 0.64 Ares of land and shop room No.27/153 27/154 and a portion of shop No.27/155 which is come under the acquisition.” CONT. CASE (C) NO.1019 OF 2008 :: 2 :: The affidavit dated 16.7.2008 is recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not necessary to prosecute further the Contempt of Court Case in view of the said affidavit. However, the counsel for the petitioner has voiced his grievance in respect of the averments in paragraph 4 of the affidavit wherein it is stated that the averments made by the petitioner are false and baseless. For the purpose of disposing of this Contempt of Court Case, it is not necessary to consider whether the averments made by the petitioner are correct or not. Therefore, I do not propose to take note of the averments in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent. The Contempt of Court Case is closed in the light of the affidavit filed by the respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/