Kerala High Court
Against The Order/Judgment In ... vs By Adv. Sri.P.K.Ravi Sankar on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.2661 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 6336/2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6336/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/3RD PETITIONER
JESUDASAN K .X.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.LATE XAVIER, KOLARIKKAL HOUSE, KOLARIKKAL ROAD,
SOUTH CHITTUR POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 027.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVI SANKAR
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT
S.SUHAS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 030.
R1 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Con.Case(C).No.2661 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 6336/2018
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of January 2021
This contempt petition is filed complaining
that the directives contained in the judgment dated
26.03.2018 in W.P.(C) No.6336 of 2018 is not
complied with.
2. Having not complied with the directions
inspite of various postings, an order was passed by
this Court on 17.12.2020, which reads thus:-
An order was passed by this Court on 30.11.2020,
which reads as follows:-
"This contempt case is filed complaining
that the directives contained in the judgment
dated 26.03.2018 in W.P.(C) No.6336 of 2018 is
not complied with.
2. An order was passed on 11.11.2020, on
the basis of the submission made by the learned
State Attorney Sri.K.V.Sohan, that the
respondent is prepared to pay balance 20% on
satisfactory conditions to be incorporated in
the agreement for receiving balance 20%.
Accordingly, the State Attorney was directed to
file an affidavit before this Court.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for
consideration, learned State Attorney sought
time. However, fact remains, the direction
contained in the judgment has two parts: (1) to
Con.Case(C).No.2661 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 6336/2018
pass an award on the basis of the acquisition of
the property and (2) to pay 20% of the balance
amount due to the writ petitioners on account of
the acquisition made.
4. In my considered opinion, for payment
of 20%, insistence of conditions may not be
proper, since it is an amount actually due to
the writ petitioners. The dispute is with
regard to the passing of the award on the basis
of an agreement executed by and between the
parties. That is a matter to be considered in a
later point of time.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to
the respondent to pay 20% of the amount due to
the writ petitioners and place an affidavit
before this Court accordingly"
2. In effect there was a direction to the
respondent to pay 20% of the balance amount due to the
writ petitioners and place an affidavit before this
Court. An affidavit is filed by the respondent stating
that one of the petitioners namely, Treasa Xavier, who
is the legal heir of late Xavier, died on 24.08.2020,
and therefore submitted that the amount could not be
released as directed by this Court. Other aspects are
also put forth in the affidavit. Fact remains, the
direction issued by this Court is not complied with.
However, learned State Attorney, Sri.K.V.Sohan,
submitted that already State has preferred an appeal
along with delay and the matter has not come up before
the Division Bench for admission.
3. Having heard respective counsel across the
Bar, and realising that peremptory directions were
issued by this Court in the judgment in question, the
District Collector ought to have complied with the
same, instead of justifying his action for not
complying with two directions. Therefore in my
considered opinion, there is contempt of the judgment
rendered by this Court.
4. Taking note of the fact that, the appeal is
preferred, I think that some time can be given and
failing to secure any orders in the appeal, the
respondent can be directed to be present before this
Court. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to be
present before this Court on 12.01.2021. However, I
make it clear that if the State is able to secure any
orders in the appeal or the directions contained in
Con.Case(C).No.2661 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 6336/2018
the judgement is complied with, the direction to
appear before this Court will sta
nd dispensed with.
Post on 12.01.2021."
3. Today when the matter is taken up, an
affidavit is filed before this Court by the
respondent as per the directions contained as
above, from where I am satisfied that the 20% of
the amount as directed in the judgment is paid, in
addition to the 80% already paid to the contempt
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, the situation would suffice if the
submission is recorded and the contempt petition is
disposed of accordingly.
4. Therefore, the contempt petition is
disposed of recording that, the entire payment due
as per the directions in the writ petition is paid
to the petitioner and an award would be passed by
the respondent, at the earliest, and at any rate,
within one month from today.
However, I make it clear that, if the award is
Con.Case(C).No.2661 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 6336/2018
not passed as is directed above, petitioner would
be at liberty to re-open his contempt petition.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
hmh
Con.Case(C).No.2661 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 6336/2018
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26/3/2018 IN WP(C) NO.6336 OF 2018.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/4/2019
IN I.A.2 OF 2019 IN WPC 6336/18.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11/4/2019 IN CON. CASE (C) NO.453 OF
2019.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/4/2019
IN R.P.NO.616 OF 2018 IN W.P.(C)
NO.6336 OF 2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY
THE LAND OWNERS AND THE SECRETARY FOR
GIDA DATED 17.12.2016
