Kerala High Court
Hima Dani vs G.Kavitha on 18 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.164 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 12781/2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12781/2020(W) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
HIMA DANI
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. DANI THOMAS, ALAPATT PALATHINGAL, KALATHIPADY,
VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686010, PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT ALAPPAT PALATHINGAL, PERINGAVU,
THRISSUR-680008.
BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENT/S:
G.KAVITHA
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
VILVATTOM P.O., THRISSUR, 680631, CONVENOR, THE
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR(REVENUE)
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.03.2021, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).176/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.176 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 12835/2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12835/2020(D) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
P.A.JOSE, AGED 71 YEARS
S/O ANTONY,
PAYAPILLI HOUSE,
PUTHANNANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL, KARAPPUZHA P O,
KOTTAYAM-686003.
BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENT/S:
G.KAVITHA
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
VILVATTOM P O, THRISSUR, -680631.
CONVENOR, THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SPL.GP(REVENUE)
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.03.2021, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).164/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
Contempt Case (Civil).No.164/2021
[Arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C).No. 12781/2020]
&
Contempt Case (Civil).No.176/2021
[Arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C).No. 12835/2020]
==================
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
Contempt of Court Case (Civil).No.164/2021 has been filed by
the petitioner therein alleging non-compliance of the directions and
orders passed by this Court in the judgment dated 30.06.2020 in
W.P.(C).No. 12781/2020.
2. Contempt of Court Case (Civil).No.176/2021 has been
filed by the petitioner therein alleging non-compliance of the
directions and orders passed by this Court in the judgment dated
30.06.2020 in W.P.(C).No. 12835/2020.
3. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in the above two cases and Sri.K.J.Mohammed
Anzar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for
the official respondents in both the cases.
4. Today, when the matter has come up for consideration,
Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that now it is reliably learnt that the final data bank in
respect of the properties lying within the limits Thrissur Municipal
COC 164 & 176 of 2021 - : 4 :-
Corporation has already been duly finalised and published in the
Kerala Gazette, in terms of Sec.5 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wet Land Act and therefore the LLMC may not have any
jurisdiction to consider the requests of the petitioners herein for
removal of the properties from the data bank and that this Court may
direct the LLMC concerned to forward the respective applications of
the petitioners to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, who has
jurisdiction in the matter and that if necessary, the petitioners can
submit formal applications in Form No.5 before the RDO at the
appropriate time, if so required. Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned
Special Government Pleader (Revenue) does not have serious
objection to the said course of action.
5. Accordingly, as regards direction No.(a) of the common
judgment in these cases, it is ordered that, in view of the subsequent
developments, the LLMC concerned shall immediately forward the
pending applications of the petitioners to the Revenue Divisional
Officer concerned, who thereafter may consider the same on merits
and if necessary, after directing the petitioners to submit any
application in the prescribed form No.5, if so necessary and
thereafter, it is for the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider those
COC 164 & 176 of 2021 - : 5 :-
applications in accordance with law and to take decision thereon. It is
made clear that the question regarding the compliance of the other
directions in "(b)" and "(c)" of para 11 of the judgment would arise
after the Revenue Divisional Officer takes decision on form No.5
applications.
With these observations and directions, the above contempt of
court cases will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
COC 164 & 176 of 2021 - : 6 :-
APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 164/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
13.11.2019.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA
BANK.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2019 IN
W.P.(C) NO.33929/2019.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR BEARING NO.D1-
18494/2019 DATED 4.5.2020.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.6.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.12781
OF 2020.
APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 176/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.11.2019.
ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK.
ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2019 IN WPC NO.
33931/2019.
ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, THRISSUR BEARING NO DI-18494/2019 DATED
04.05.2020.
ANNEXURE-E TRUE COPY OF THE ON-LINE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2020 IN WPC NO. 12835 OF 2020.
