Dr.Ramesh Babu vs Snehikumar Singh I.A.S
2021 Latest Caselaw 6867 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.1836 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 40247/2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 40247/2018(E) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

      1      DR.RAMESH BABU
             AGED 61 YEARS
             S/O.APPAVU, SAUPARNIKA, KATTAKKARA EAST,
             KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017.

      2      MINI RAMESH,
             AGED 56 YEARS
             W/O. DR. RAMESH BABU, SAUPARNIKA,
             KATTAKKARA EAST, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017.

             BY ADV. SRI.VINUCHAND

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

             SNEHIKUMAR SINGH I.A.S
             (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             FORT COCHIN, 682 001.

             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.1836 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 40247/2018

                                         2


                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of February 2021

This Contempt Petition is filed complaining that the

directives contained in judgment dated 11.12.2018 in WP(C)

No.40247 of 2018 are not complied with. In fact, the direction

was to consider an application pending before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin.

2. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that the

property in question is an unnotified land and the petitioners have

submitted the application before the Revenue Divisional Officer on

15.11.2018 i.e. after the cut of date of 13.12.2017. It is also

pointed out that the petitioners have to submit an application in

accordance with the provision of Section 27A of Act, 2008 and in

the statutory format prescribed for the purpose. However,

petitioners have not submitted any such applications and

therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer was unable to pass an

order in contemplation of the provisions of Section 27A of the Act,

2008.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that

they have to make an application in terms of Section 27A of the

Act, 2008.

Con.Case(C).No.1836 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 40247/2018

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion

that nothing survives to be considered in this Contempt Petition.

Therefore, it is closed leaving open the liberty of the petitioners

to approach the statutory authority by making an appropriate

application in accordance with law.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE SCS Con.Case(C).No.1836 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 40247/2018

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DATED 11/12/2018 IN WPC NO. 40247/2018

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 29/3/2019 ALONG WITH ITS POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 30/3/2019.

ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 1/4/2019.

ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 2/7/2019 ALONG WITH A POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 2/7/2019.

ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 3/7/2019.