K.S.Krishnankutty Nair vs Beena.S.Haneefa
2021 Latest Caselaw 6866 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

         Con.Case(C).No.1995 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 1276/2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1276/2018(H) OF HIGH COURT OF
                             KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             K.S.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR
             AGED 65 YEARS
             S/O SANKARANKUTTY, KANIYAMKUNNEL HOUSE,
             POOLAKKAL(PO), KILLANNUR VILLAGE,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT

             BY ADV. SMT.M.A.ZOHRA

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

             BEENA.S.HANEEFA
             AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
             SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), LAND ASSIGNMENT UNIT NO.1,
             THRISSUR-680001

             BY ADV.

             SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.1995 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 1276/2018

                                    2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of February 2021

This Contempt Case is filed complaining that the

directives contained in the judgment dated 28.02.2018 in

WP(C) No.1276 of 2018 is not complained with. In fact, the

direction was issued to consider an application submitted by

the petitioner for assignment. In the judgment itself it was

recorded that the land sought for assignment is not available

on ground and with that factual background alone directions

were issued to consider the application for assignment.

2. A detailed affidavit is filed by the respondent

stating that in accordance with the directions contained,

Annexure AII order dated 11.04.2018 is passed by the

Special Tahsildar. On verification of Annexure AII it is clear

that it was in accordance with the directions issued by this

Court the said order was passed.

In my considered view, since the direction contained in

the judgment is a simple direction to consider an application

and when an order is passed the veracity and legality of the Con.Case(C).No.1995 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 1276/2018

order cannot be a subject matter of challenge in the

Contempt Petition. Therefore, having satisfied that the

directions are complied with I do not find any reason to

pursue the Contempt Petition any further and closed

accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE SCS Con.Case(C).No.1995 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 1276/2018

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-2-

2018 IN WPC 1276/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

ANNEXURE AII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-04-2018 OF THE TAHSILDAR (L.A) DECLINING TO OBEY THIS HON'BLE COURT'S DIRECTIONS DATED 28-2-2018

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER LRJI-45496/11 DATED 22.05.2014 BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER No.TC2-789/16 DATED 20.02.2016 BY THE DFO THRISSUR