IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
CON.CASE(C) NO. 672 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 2642/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) 2642/2022:
R.SHEEJA
AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.R.M. PARAMESHWARAN,
SWARARAGASUDHA, SREECHITRA NAGAR, PANGODE,
THIRUVANANTHPURAM, PIN - 695006
BY ADVS.
MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A
T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
K.P.MAJEED
K.M.MOHAMMED YUSUFF (M-1323)
SHANKAR V.
T.A.MOHAMMED SANOOJ
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) 2642/2022:
K.G.MOHAN,
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER), THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
L.R. TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE, KOTTAIKAKAM,
PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHPURAM - 695004
BY ADV.
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY - GP.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case (C) No.672 of 2023
:2:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
=========================
Con.Case (C) No.672 of 2023
==========================
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
Though the learned Government Pleader - Sri.Riyal Devassy, submits that the directions in the judgment have been fully complied with by the respondent issuing an order dated 05.06.2023, produced along with memo dated 06.06.2023 - Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently asserted that said order is in blatant disregard to the authority of this Court.
2. Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez pointed out that even though this Court has, in two judgments - including the one involved in this case, specifically directed the Tahsildar to advert to the report, dated 06.11.2020, of the District Superintendent of Survey, Thiruvananthapuram, apart from peripherally mentioning the same, there is no proper consideration of it at all. He argued that, therefore, the new order issued is only an attempt to circumvent the directions of this Court.
3. Sri.Riyal Devassy - learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted that, as is evident from the new order, the respondent has found that even the report of the District Superintendent of Survey, Thiruvananthapuram, would show that Con.Case (C) No.672 of 2023 :3: the petitioner's grievance would not fall under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. He, however, conceded that there is no specific mention in the order as to how the Tahsildar had considered the said report, including the directions therein. He, therefore, prayed that this Court grant another opportunity to the respondent to issue a fresh order, which he undertook to place on record within one month.
4. I am certain that the afore suggestion of the learned Government Pleader is the most apposite in the given circumstances.
In the afore circumstances, I close this Contempt of Court Case; leaving liberty to the respondent to rehear the petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court and to issue a fresh order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For the afore purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent at 11 am on 20.06.2023.
I also leave liberty to the petitioner to seek rehearing of this contempt case, if the afore undertakings are violated by the respondent in any manner whatsoever.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE anm Con.Case (C) No.672 of 2023 :4: APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 672/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure- 1 ONLINE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 18/03/2022 IN W.P.(C) 2642/2022 Annexure- 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 8/12/2020 IN WP(C) 27110/2020 Annexure- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, DATED 23/2/2023 Annexure- 4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LAWYER NOTICE DATED 5/3/2023, THROUGH PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT