IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1451 of 2009(S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19486/2009 DATED 28/07/2009 .................... PETITIONER/9TH PETITIONER IN WP(C) NO. 19486/2009.: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RETNAMMA, AGED 60, W/O.LAKSHMANAN, PUTHUMANNEAL,AALUMPEEDIKA PO AYIRAMTHENGU, ALAPPAD, PRAYAR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 IN WP: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJAHAN, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. MINI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM. *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED ADDL. R3: SMT.NIVEDITA P.HARAN, SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LAND AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 19/03/2010 IN I.A.120/2010 IN COC.1451/2009. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.B. RAMANAD. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.1451 of 2009-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010. Judgment This contempt of court case is filed by the 9th petitioner in WP(C).19486/2009. Following the judgment, the department has prepared a cheque for Rs.95,000/- in favour of the petitioner Retnamma. However, the same is not being released only because the building has not been numbered by the LSGI, i.e, the Alappad panchayat. There is no dispute between the State and the petitioner herein that the land belongs to the petitioner. Obviously, therefore, the building standing thereon can only be treated as belonging to her, in the absence of the materials to the contrary. The dispute between the LSGI and the petitioner appears to be in the realm of distance rule. That does not stand in the way of any payment by the State towards compensation for COC1451/09 -: 2 :- the damage caused to the building. However, that will be without prejudice to any right or power that the LSGI may exercise against the petitioner or the building, as the case may be, in accordance with law. The respondents will take expeditious steps to issue the cheque within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This contempt of court case is closed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2807