Vanju Kamal vs Liju John
2021 Latest Caselaw 6869 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6869 Ker
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2021

Kerala High Court

Vanju Kamal vs Liju John on 26 February, 2021

             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.1486 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 18386/2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18386/2018(W) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             VANJU KAMAL
             AGED 38 YEARS
             S/O. LATE S KAMALASANAN,
             MANJU VILLA, KADAKKAL P.O,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.

             SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
             SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
             SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
             SRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
             SRI.JACOB STEPHEN

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

             LIJU JOHN
             (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
             RESIDING AT VADAKKADATHU HOUSE,
             E.T.C JUNCTION,THRIKKANAMANKAL, KOTTARAKKARA P.O,
             KOLLAM-691506, CONVENER,
             LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF NILAMEL GRAMA
             PANCHAYAT/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             KRISHI BHAVAN, NILAMEL P.O,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT-691535.


             BY ADV.

             R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
             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.1486 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 18386/2018

                                      2


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of February 2021

This Contempt Petition is filed complaining that the directives

contained in the judgment dated 15.10.2018 in WP(C) No.18386 of

2018 is not complied with. The direction is contained in paragraph

No.4 of the judgment and it is extracted hereunder for convenience:

"4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the additional 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P9 and take a decision at the earliest possible time and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, also taking into account Ext.P7 order passed by the authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and if the petitioner is securing an order as directed above, the building permit application submitted by the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law, also taking into account the said order irrespective of the findings contained under Ext.P6, at the earliest."

2. A detailed affidavit is filed by the respondent, whereby it

is stated as follows at paragraph Nos. 11 and 12.

"11. The 27.58 Ares property mentioned by the petitioner in block No.41 Re.Sy No.399/3-2 has not been included as Nilam in the databank of wetlands published in 2012 & in the draft databank of wetlands published on 22.02.2018 (after rectifications of the correction applications received) and in the final databank list published on 06.07.2019 by LLMC. 27.58 Ares land is in Block No.41, Re-Sy No.399/3-2. 11.94 Ares land in Re-Sy No.399/4 in the same block No.41 is in the same compound which has not been mentioned in the petition. It is not included in the databank as Nilam or wetland.

Con.Case(C).No.1486 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 18386/2018

12. The direction in the judgment is to consider the application submitted by the petitioner before the Chairman of the LLMC for removal of the property from the data bank. From the facts mentioned in this affidavit is clear that the property of the petitioner is not included in the data bank. Hence no contempt will lie against this respondent. This respondent has acted as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court without any delay. This affidavit may be accepted on record and the contempt proceedings may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice."

Learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Surin George Ipe has also

invited my attention to Annexure R1(e) and submitted that

Sy.No.399/4 is not included in the data bank constituted as per the

provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland

Act, 2008.

In my considered opinion, in effect the direction issued by this

Court to consider Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioner for

the said purpose was a futile exercise and for the very same reason

a Contempt Petition is not maintainable with regard to the directions

contained in the judgment. Needless to say, the Contempt Petition is

not maintainable, accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-