Kerala High Court
C.A. Kurian vs Chetan Kumar Meena I.A.S on 12 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.133 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8267/2020(G) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
C.A. KURIAN
AGED 81 YEARS
S/O. ABRAHAM, CHATHANKERIL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM P.O., NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 621.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
SMT.MINIKUMARY M.V.
SHRI.AJAI JOHN
RESPONDENT/S:
CHETAN KUMAR MEENA I.A.S
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER), SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER (R.D.O), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 101.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SPL.GP(REVENUE)
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
Contempt Case (Civil).No. 133/2021
[Arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C).No. 8267/2020]
==================
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
The aforecaptioned Contempt Case (Civil) has been filed
alleging non-compliance of the directions and orders passed by this
Court in Anx. A judgment dated 17.3.2020 filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri.T.P.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special
Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for the respondent RDO.
3. When the matter had come up for consideration on
previous occasion, this Court had passed an order dated 19.2.2021,
which reads as follows:
"The respondent officer (Revenue Divisional Officer) is given 10
days' time as last chance to pass revised orders so as to delete the adverse
conditions in Annexure B proceedings dated 01.10.2020, issued under Rule
6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order), 1967 and also to
ensure that the revised order passed is an unconditional grant of statutory
permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and in strict compliance with
the directions in Annexure A judgment dated 17.03.2020 in W.P.(C)
No.8267/2020 in letter and spirit. The respondent officer will show cause
as to why action should not taken against him in for showing the defiance in
issuing Annexure B proceedings dated 01.10.2020 without even referring or
adverting to even about the very existence of Annexure A judgment
rendered on 17.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.8267/2020. The respondent officer
will also show cause as to why this Court should not take the view that the
abovesaid conduct on his part is one which is unbecoming of a responsible
Government servant, who has minimal commitment to rule of law and
constitutionalism and also as to why personal costs shall not be imposed on
him for the blatant violations of the directions contained in Annexure A
judgment.
2. If the respondent officer does not take necessary remedial
measures as abovestated, then this Court will be constrained to take a very
COC 133/21 - : 3 :-
serious view of the matter and in that case this Court may even consider
imposing exemplary cost, which shall be fully paid by the respondent officer
from his personal fund and not even a single paise thereof can be
appropriated from the public exchequer.
3. If the respondent officer does not comply with the aforesaid
directions before the next posting date, then he shall be personally present
before this Court on the next posting date.
List the case on 12.03.2021 for reporting compliance of the
directions in Annexure A judgment, as aforestated."
4. Today, when the matter has been taken up for
consideration, Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special
Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for the respondent RDO
would submit on the basis of the instructions that the respondent has
now passed revised orders so as to vacate the conditions imposed in
the previous order dated 1.10.2020 by issuing proceedings No.A6-
1022/2014/KDS dated 25.4.2021, a copy of which has been produced
memo dated 3.3.2021 filed by the Special Government Pleader
(Revenue) and a copy of which has also been given to the counsel for
the petitioner. It is pointed out on behalf of the respondent officer
that the said revised proceedings dated 25.2.2021 grants
unconditional permission to the petitioner under Rule 6(2) of the
KLU Order to use the subject property for any non-agricultural
purposes. Hence it is pointed out that this contempt court case may
be closed.
5. The abovesaid submissions made on behalf of the
COC 133/21 - : 4 :-
respondent are recorded. Further it is ordered that, as already
directed by this Court in Anx.A judgment, as and when the petitioner
makes necessary consequential application under Sec. 6A of the
Kerala Land Tax Act before the Tahsildar concerned, the said officer
may pass orders of fresh assessment of the subject property under
Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Act so as to make additional entries in the
BTR to show the changed nature of the land as "garden
land/purayidam" instead of the earlier BTR entries as "nilam/paddy
land", in case the subject property covered by the said Sec. 6A Kerala
Land Tax Act application is the same or part of the same as the one
covered by the present proceedings dated 25.2.2021 issued under
Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order by the respondent RDO. Orders in that
regard should be duly passed by the Tahsildar without any further
delay, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of any
such application.
Recording the abovesaid submissions of the respondent officer
and with these observations and directions, the above Contempt Case
(Civil) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
COC 133/21 - : 5 :-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.3.2020
IN WPC NO.8267 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.10.2020 OF SUB-
COLLECTOR.
