A.G.Krishnan Vs. L.Radhakrishnan and Others

A.G.Krishnan vs L.Radhakrishnan and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1014498

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1014498
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Decided On: Jan 31, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A.G.Krishnan

Respondent

L.Radhakrishnan and Others

Excerpt

.....the learned special government pleader appeared on behalf of the respondents.3. the direction given by this court as per annexure a judgment reads as follows:- writ petitioner may point out the genuineness of this case before the government and in case similarly situated persons have been granted permission to cut and remove the trees in the neighbouring land, appropriate action without discriminating the petitioner will be taken by the government within another three months. further proceedings pursuant to c.o.c no. 1607 o”2. ext. p3 will be deferred till such time. admittedly the matter was considered by the government pursuant to the above verdict and an order was passed on 24.10.2007, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner himself as annexure c. as per annexure c, it has been held that, the relief sought for by the petitioner is not liable to be acceded to and it was accordingly, that the claim was rejected. if the petitioner is aggrieved of the same in any manner, or if any discriminatory course and proceedings have been pursued by the concerned respondent, it was always open for the petitioner to have challenged the said order by way of writ petition or otherwise, seeking for interference and for a positive relief. this however is not a matter to be proceeded by way of 'contempt' of court proceedings. this court finds that, the matter has been considered by the respondents based on annexure a judgment, passing annexure c order; however declining the relief sought for. this court does not find any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents, to be proceeded further, in these proceedings. c.o.c no. 1607 o”3. in the said circumstances, this contempt petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner as mentioned above, in accordance with law. p.r. ramachandra menon, (judge) sp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH MAGHA 193 Con. Case(C).No. 1607 of 2007 (S) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.19821/2000 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21 11-2006 PETITIONER: ------------------ A.G. KRISHNAN, S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 74 RESIDING AT ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE NANDIATTUKUNNAM, PARAVUR TALUK, PARAVUR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI. T.A. SHAJI SMT. T.V. NEEMA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. L. RADHAKRISHNAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. C.S. YALAKKI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. K.G. PRASANNAKUMARI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARMBIL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con. Case(C).No. 1607 of 2007 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- ANNEXURE A - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21 11.2006 IN O.P. NO. 19821/2000 HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE B - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15 12.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. ANNEXURE C - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24 10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- ANNEXURE R2(a) - COPY OF ORDER NO.GO(RT) NO. 599/07/FOREST DATED 24 10.2007. // True Copy// P.A. TO JUDGE sp P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

------------------------------------ C.O.C No. 1607 of 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013. JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondents in complying with the direction given by this Court as per Annexure A judgment dated 21.11.2006 in O.P. No.19821 of 2000. A filed a detailed Affidavit has been filed by the respondents/contemnors reporting compliance and asserting that, there is absolutely no basis or merit in the averments and allegations levelled against the respondents. The petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit as well.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. The direction given by this Court as per Annexure A judgment reads as follows:- Writ petitioner may point out the genuineness of this case before the Government and in case similarly situated persons have been granted permission to cut and remove the trees in the neighbouring land, appropriate action without discriminating the petitioner will be taken by the Government within another three months. Further proceedings pursuant to C.O.C No. 1607 o”

2. Ext. P3 will be deferred till such time. Admittedly the matter was considered by the Government pursuant to the above verdict and an order was passed on 24.10.2007, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner himself as Annexure C. As per Annexure C, it has been held that, the relief sought for by the petitioner is not liable to be acceded to and it was accordingly, that the claim was rejected. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the same in any manner, or if any discriminatory course and proceedings have been pursued by the concerned respondent, it was always open for the petitioner to have challenged the said order by way of writ petition or otherwise, seeking for interference and for a positive relief. This however is not a matter to be proceeded by way of 'contempt' of Court proceedings. This Court finds that, the matter has been considered by the respondents based on Annexure A judgment, passing Annexure C order; however declining the relief sought for. This Court does not find any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents, to be proceeded further, in these proceedings. C.O.C No. 1607 o”

3. In the said circumstances, this contempt petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner as mentioned above, in accordance with law. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) sp

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties A.G.Krishnan vs L.Radhakrishnan and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon