Kerala High Court
Jeby Abraham vs Chetan Kumar Meena on 21 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1736 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 29962/2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29962/2019(U) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C):
JEBY ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.K.A.ABRAHAM, KUNNUKANDATHIL, KUTTOOR P.O.,
THIRUVALLA-689106.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
RESPONDENT:
CHETAN KUMAR MEENA
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA-689101.
SRI. MUHAMMED ANZAR - SPL. GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1736 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of January 2021
This contempt case has been filed alleging that in spite of
the specific directions in the judgment dated 07.11.2019, the
respondent has now issued Annexure B notice whereby he has
been asked to remit the fair value of another property, though
the said value with respect to his property has been fixed
through Annexures C and D. The petitioner says that
Annexure B notice is egregiously improper and contrary to
various judgments of this Court including in Vimal Vincent
(Dr.) v. RDO, Irinjalakkuda [2020 (1) KHC 123].
2. Noticing the afore submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner by his learned counsel on an earlier occasion, when
this contempt case was listed, I had directed the learned
Special Government Pleader as to why the fair value of
another land had been adopted in Annexure B and not that of
the petitioner's property.
3. Today, the learned Special Government Pleader for
Revenue submitted that Annexure B and subsequent orders
have been issued without being aware of Annexures C and D
fair valuation of the petitioner's property and therefore being
under the impression that the value of the similar property can
Con.Case(C).No.1736 OF 2020
be adopted. He submitted that since the petitioner now say
that Annexures C and D are fair valuation of the property in
question, he will advise the respondent to withdraw Annexure
B as also the subsequent orders, and to issue a fresh
proceedings in terms of the directions of this Court.
4. I find that this stand now adopted by the learned
Special Government Pleader for Revenue is very fair in the
given circumstances and I am, therefore, of the view that this
contempt case need not be prosecuted any further.
Resultantly, this contempt case is closed, recording the
submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader for
Revenue that Annexure B and proceedings issued pursuant
thereto, will be withdrawn and a fresh proceedings in terms of
the directions of this Court, adverting to Vimal Vincent (Dr.)
(supra) will be issued taking note of Annexures C and D fair
valuation of the petitioner's property within one month from
today, however leaving liberty to the petitioner to seek a
rehearing of this case, if the afore undertaking is not complied
with.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
stu JUDGE
Con.Case(C).No.1736 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A ONLINE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
7.11.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)
NO.29962/2019.
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A3/4121/19
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FAIR
VALUE NOTIFICATION OF LAND IN RE-SURVEY NO.
57/9 IN BLOCK NO.11 OF KUTTOOR VILLAGE AS
AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF REGISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FAIR
VALUE NOTIFICATION OF LAND IN RE-SURVEY NO.
57/10 IN BLOCK NO.11 OF KUTTOOR VILLAGE AS
AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF REGISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
