C. Vijayan vs Aadala Rasan R
2021 Latest Caselaw 13806 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. 988 OF 2018
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 33196/2016 DATED 21.11.2016 OF
                    HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:

           C. VIJAYAN
           S/O.LATE CHAMIYAR,PULIMADA HOUSE,NECHUR.P.O,PIN-
           678544,TARUR II VILLAGE,ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DIST.

           BY ADV SRI.P.BABU KUMAR


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      AADALA RASAN R.
           AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE
           PETITIONER,WORKING AS CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR,EASTERN
           CIRCLE,OLAVAKKOD,PALAKKAD-678002.

    2      SASIKUMAR
           AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE
           PETITIONER,NOW WORKING AS DIVISIONAL FOREST
           OFFICER,NENMARA.P.O,PALAKKAD-678508.

    3      VENU V.IAS
           AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE
           PETITIONER,NOW WORKING AS ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY,FOREST &
           WILD LIFE(C)DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
           SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    4      SUNIL JOSEPH
           AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE
           PETITIONER,NOW WORKING AS ASST.DIRECTOR,FOREST MINI
           SURVEY,ARAKKINAR,MANTHOTTAM,KOZHIKODE-673028.

           BY ADVS.
           GOVERNMENT PLEADER
           SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. FOR FOREST


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. 988 OF 2018
                                       2

                                   JUDGMENT

This contempt petition is filed complaining that the directives contained

in the judgment dated 21.11.2016 is not complied with. It is an admitted fact

that within the time period prescribed by this Court, the property was not

handed over, nor the property is handed over to the contempt petitioner even

now. However, two affidavits are filed by the respondents basically

submitting that, whatever property available on ground in the Survey No. in

question is ear marked, measured out and ready to be handed over to the

contempt petitioner. However, the contempt petitioner has not produced the

legal heirship certificate and executed an indemnity bond as demanded by the

forest officials.

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

Pleader for Forests Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan submitted that, if the petitioner

executes an indemnity bond in favour of the forest department, the property

on ground ear marked would be handed over to the petitioner without any

delay. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.Babukumar submitted that,

in fact, the petitioner has executed an indemnity bond which is produced

along with the reply filed to the affidavits filed by the forest officials. Learned

Special Government Pleader for Forests also submitted that, even though the

requirement of legal heirship certificate was insisted upon in the affidavits CON.CASE(C) NO. 988 OF 2018

filed before this Court, if the petitioner executes an indemnity bond, the

property will be handed over. The said aspect is recorded. Learned Counsel

for the petitioner has no objection in executing an indemnity bond in favour

of the forest department. In that view of the matter, I think it is only

appropriate that the contempt petition is closed, taking into account the

submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the Forests

and the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as is recorded above.

Accordingly the contempt petition is closed, leaving open the liberty of

the petitioner to execute an indemnity bond in favour of the forest officials for

the purpose of handing over the property to the petitioner, and if that is done

by the petitioner, the possession shall be handed over without any delay and

at the earliest possible and at any rate, within one month from today. I also

make it clear that, if the petitioner has any dispute with respect to the

property handed over to the petitioner on account of the directions issued by

this Court in various proceedings, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the

same in accordance with law.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

uu 02.07.2021 CON.CASE(C) NO. 988 OF 2018

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.

(C)NO.33196/2016 DATED 21.11.2016 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.12.2016

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2017