M.K.Gopi vs Margaret
2021 Latest Caselaw 13790 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
        FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
                      CON.CASE(C) NO. 2061 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31600/2018 DATED 27.09.2018 OF HIGH
                            COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:

           M.K.GOPI
           AGED 66 YEARS
           S/O.M.K.KUTTAN, GOPIKA, 40 NAGAR, CHEROOR, THRISSUR-
           680008.

           BY ADV C.A.ANOOP



RESPONDENT/S:

    1      MARGARET,
           (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE
           VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680008.

    2      AFSANA PARVEEN,
           THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME
           NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
           CIVIL LANE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE-680003.

    3      G.KAVITHA,
           (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
           LOCAL SELF MONITORING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS
           CHAIRMAN/CONVEYOR AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN,
           VILVATTOM, THRISSUR-680008.

           BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GP



THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 2061 OF 2019
                                         2

                                   JUDGMENT

This contempt petition is filed complaining that the directives contained in

the judgment dated 27.09.2018 is not complied with. On 09.04.2021, this Court

in fact observed that the conduct on the part of the convener of the Local Level

Monitoring Committee under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

land and Wet Land Act, 2008, is contumacious in nature.

2. Today when the matter was taken up, learned Senior Government

Pleader Sri.Surin George Ipe submitted before this Court that the orders were

passed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee on 01.07.2021, based on the

meeting of the committee convened on 25.06.2021, and decided to retain the

property as paddy field itself. Though the order is passed in violation of the time

period prescribed in the judgment, in view of the passage of the order, I do not

find any reason to pursue the contempt case.

In that view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed, recording the

above and leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to proceed against the order,

if advised so.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

uu 02.07.2021 CON.CASE(C) NO. 2061 OF 2019

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2061/2019

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.31600/2018.