Jaimon Vs. the District Collector and ors.

Jaimon vs The District Collector and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Kerala Decided Jun 19, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/725164

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/725164
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
Decided On: Jun 19, 2008
Case Number: W.P. (C) 17453 of 2008
Subject: Property
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 20 & 2(b); [J.B. Koshy, A.K. Basheer & K.P. Balachandran, JJ] Civil contempt Limitation under Section 20 Held, Aggrieved party should file an application within one year of date of contempt. Date of application will be considered as date on which contempt proceedings were...

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4, 4(1) and 6

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jaimon

Advocate P.P. Jacob, Adv.

Respondent

The District Collector and ors.

Advocate Shyson P. Manguzha, GP

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4, 4(1) and 6
Cases Referred: Urban Improvement Trust v. Bheru Lal and Ors.
Reported In: 2008(2)KLJ965; 2008(3)KLT614

Excerpt

- contempt of courts act, 1971 -- sections 20 & 2(b); [j.b. koshy, a.k. basheer & k.p. balachandran, jj] civil contempt limitation under section 20 held, aggrieved party should file an application within one year of date of contempt. date of application will be considered as date on which contempt proceedings were initiated. where the application was filed within one month from the date of contempt and the court delayed posting of case for more than four years for no fault of the petitioner, the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies. petition is not barred by limitation. - this argument also has to fail......ammal and ors. air 1996 supreme court 866 that in an erratum notification is published to an original notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, the same will date back to the date of the original notification. as for the facts of the present case, the original notification under section 4(1) was published in the gazette on 25-4-2005 and in malay ala manorama daily on 8-6-2005. going by section 4, which provides different modes of publication of the notification under section 4, it is the last date of publication and giving of public notice which is to be treated as the date of publication of the notification. thus it is 31-8-2005 which is to be treated as the date of the notification under section 4(1) of the act in this case. erratum notification was issued on 22-5-2006 and published on 3-8-2006 in mathrubhoomi daily followed by a subsequent errata notification published in the gazette on 17-7-2006. both these errata notifications will date back to the date of the original notification under section 4(1) of the act i.e. to 31-8-2005.2. it is seen that the declaration under section 6 has been published in this case in the gazette on 31-8-2006. it was argued that since the last date of the publication of the declaration under section 6 if only on 11-10-2006 the declaration is to be found to be time barred. this argument also has to fail. a reading of the first proviso to section 6 will show that the time of one year is for making the declaration under section 6 and not for its publication. the hon'ble supreme court also has reiterated this aspect in urban improvement trust v. bheru lal and ors. : [2002]supp2scr512 . the file will show that declaration under section 6 was made on 30-8-206 though it was published only on subsequent dates. the making of the declaration under section 6 in this case is within the period of one year of the publication of the notification under section 4(1). hence the challenge against the declaration on the.....

Full Judgment

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. This writ petition raises an important question. The question is whether, when an erratum notification is published to the original notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the period of one year for making declaration as envisaged by the first proviso to Section 6 can be reckoned from the date of the erratum notification. The Supreme Court has held in its judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Mahalaskhmi Ammal and Ors. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 866 that in an erratum notification is published to an original notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the same will date back to the date of the original notification. As for the facts of the present case, the original notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Gazette on 25-4-2005 and in Malay ala Manorama daily on 8-6-2005. Going by Section 4, which provides different modes of publication of the notification under Section 4, it is the last date of publication and giving of public notice which is to be treated as the date of publication of the notification. Thus it is 31-8-2005 which is to be treated as the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in this case. Erratum notification was issued on 22-5-2006 and published on 3-8-2006 in Mathrubhoomi daily followed by a subsequent errata notification published in the Gazette on 17-7-2006. Both these errata notifications will date back to the date of the original notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. to 31-8-2005.

2. It is seen that the declaration under Section 6 has been published in this case in the gazette on 31-8-2006. It was argued that since the last date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 if only on 11-10-2006 the declaration is to be found to be time barred. This argument also has to fail. A reading of the first proviso to Section 6 will show that the time of one year is for making the declaration under Section 6 and not for its publication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has reiterated this aspect in Urban Improvement Trust v. Bheru Lal and Ors. : [2002]SUPP2SCR512 . The file will show that declaration under Section 6 was made on 30-8-206 though it was published only on subsequent dates. The making of the declaration under Section 6 in this case is within the period of one year of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Hence the challenge against the declaration on the ground of limitation fails.

3. This writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2008 Same Parties Jaimon vs The District Collector and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4, 4(1) and 6

Property