Kerala High Court
A.K.Mony vs K.Ambrose Varghese on 13 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1699 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 27211/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27211/2016(B) DATED 13.08.2019
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC 27211 OF 2016:
A.K.MONY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN,
SECRETARY, PARUR TLAUK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, NO. E-1193,
NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DSITIRCT 683 513.
BY ADVS.
SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE
SRI.JEEMON K.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC 27211 OF 2016:
K.AMBROSE VARGHESE
AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
KANAPPILLY HOUSE, OLANADU, VARAPUZHA P.O. 683 517,
TAHSILDAR TALUK ORIFICE, PARUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513.
SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL - SR.GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COC 1699/20
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
alleging that in spite of the directions in the
judgment dated 13.08.2019, the respondent has
refused to issue the sketch of the property in
question.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
- Sri.Vineeth Kuriakose, submitted that
Annexure-E proceedings have been issued by the
Tahsildar rejecting his client's request for
the survey sketch, even though, as per Annexure
G, it is manifest that tax had been remitted
with respect to the property in question
validly. He, therefore, prays that further
action against the respondent be taken in this
COC.
3. In response, the learned Government
Pleader - Sri.Mathew George Vadakkel, submitted
that an affidavit has been filed by the
respondent, as directed by this Court,
COC 1699/20
producing Annexure-R1(a) sketches, which will
establish as to why the said authority has been
unable to issue the sketch as prayed for by the
petitioner. He submitted that the property is
not identifiable, since there are multiple
claims and ownerships asserted over it and
therefore, that the respondent is incapacitated
from issuing the sketch.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that Annexure-R1(a)
proceedings cannot be relied upon at all
because, as is evident from the affidavit
itself, all the encumbrances created over it
are after the mortgage was created in favour of
his client and therefore, that the respondent
be directed to issue the survey sketch as
ordered by this Court.
5. Even when I hear the learned counsel
for the petitioner on the afore lines, the fact
remains that the respondent has complied with
COC 1699/20
the directions in the judgment by issuing
Annexure-C proceedings and further explaining -
as to why he is incapacitated from issuing the
survey sketch - through Annexure-R1(a) and the
averments in the affidavit sworn to him dated
17.11.2020.
It would, therefore, not be proper or
prudent for this Court to enter into the merits
of the proceedings now issued by the Tahsildar,
since it will require an assessment of various
factual and documentary inputs and materials.
I am, therefore, of the view that the
petitioner must challenge Annexure-E order of
the respondent, if he requires any further
relief as sought for by him.
This COC is thus closed, reserving the
afore liberty to the petitioner.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
COC 1699/20
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGER IN WPC
NO. 27211 /2016 DATED 13.8.2019.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
17.09.2019.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED
31.10.2019.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING
DATED 06.01.2020
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
10.02.2020.
RESPONDENT'S EXTS:
ANNEXURE-R1(A) COPY OF ROUGH COLOUR SKETCH SHOWING
THE OVERLAPPING OF THE BOUNDARIES
