Kerala High Court
Sindhu Manikandan vs Bini K.U on 1 October, 2021
COC No.181 of 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 181 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17364/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SINDHU MANIKANDAN
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.MANIKANDAN, ROADARIKATH VEEDU, PEROORKKADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 005.
BY ADVS.
T.N.SURESH
SMT.DHANUJA VETTATHU
SHRI.MONSY K.V
RESPONDENTS:
1 BINI K.U.
SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.
ADDL. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
R2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 2/7/2021
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)FOR R1
SRI.DHEERAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COC No.181 of 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of October,2021
This contempt petition is filed complaining that the directives contained in
the judgment dated 6.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No.17364 of 2013 are not complied
with.
2. After having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the Standing
Counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, the writ petition was disposed
of directing the Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, to hand over the
land earmarked to the beneficiaries of the scheme, launched by the
Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority, on acquisition of the land occupied
by them in poramboke properties for the widening of Kowdiar-Peroorkada-
Vazhayila PWD road to the Revenue Department, at the earliest and at any rate,
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment
and further, the State Government was directed to take appropriate action in
order to implement the Scheme thereafter forthwith and at any rate, within a
further period of six months from the date of receipt of the property from the
Corporation.
3. According to the petitioner, instead of complying with the directions
contained in the judgment, the Secretary of the Corporation viz., respondent,
filed review petition No.1139/2019, however, it was dismissed as per an order
dated 19.8.2020. But the respondent in spite of an elapse of a period of four
months from the date of the dismissal of the review petition, failed to comply
with the directions contained in the judgment and therefore, the action was
deliberate and contumacious in nature, liable to be proceeded against the
respondent under the contempt of courts act 1971 .
4. The Secretary of the Corporation has filed an affidavit before this Court on
24th March, 2021, wherein interalia it is stated that an extent of 28.5 Ares of
property comprised in R.S.Nos.66/3 & 66/3-1 of Block No.34 of Karakulam Village
of Nedumangad taluk has been handed over to the Revenue Department of the
State Government along with survey sketch, possession certificate and tax receipt
showing the payment of current land tax. Therefore, according to the Secretary
of the Corporation, since the Secretary has complied with the directions contained
in the judgment, it is for the State Government to take further appropriate steps
for the rehabilitation of the evictees from the poramboke land. According to the
Secretary, land handed over by the Corporation is suitable in all respects for
implementing the Scheme, however, the road leading to the property has only a
width of 1.20 meters. Therefore, for widening the road to 6 meters, a negotiated
purchase with the neighbouring owner of the property is being attempted by the
Corporation. Matters being so, according to the Secretary, there is no wilful
negligence or laches on the part of either the Corporation or officials of the
Corporation in the matter of the unavoidable delay caused in implementing the
directions issued by this Court. It is also pointed out that the present emergent
situation of COVID-19 pandemic has also affected the steps proposed by the
Corporation in order to comply with the directions issued by this Court.
5. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the property handed over
by the Corporation is not a suitable property for implementing the Scheme and
further that the very same property was found to be a property unfit for human
habitation as per the report of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram dated
22.7.2014, produced as Exhibit P14, along with the writ petition in question. It is
also submitted that the rehabilitation process was being delayed by the
Corporation in one pretext or other. Anyhow, since the petitioner has contended
that the property in question is not a suitable property for habitation, the District
Collector, Thiruvananthapuram was impleaded suo motu by this Court for the
limited purpose of securing a report in regard to the property. Accordingly, the
District Collector has submitted before this Court a report, in which it is stated as
follows:
6. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.T.N.Suresh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation
Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, assisted by Adv.P.K.manoj Mumar, learned
Government Pleader Sri.Dheeraj and perused the pleadings and materials on
record.
7. It is an admitted fact that though there was some delay on the part of the
Corporation in taking steps to hand over the property, the property is now
handed over to the Revenue Department for implementing the Scheme. Case of
the petitioner is that the said property is not a habitable one, which was reported
by the District Collector in the year 2014 itself and therefore, the directions issued
by this Court is not complied with by the Secretary of the Corporation in its letter
and spirit and mere handing over of an uninhabitable land is an eyewash to get
over the contempt proceedings, and since the action is deliberate, proceedings
may be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
8. Anyhow a report is filed by the District Collector, which is extracted above,
which shows that the property handed over by the Corporation at present is a
habitable one in order to implement the Scheme for rehabilitating the petitioner
and others for having evicted them from the poramboke land in order to widen
the road. It is true there are certain deficiencies still occurring but it is stated by
the Secretary of the Corporation in her affidavit that efforts are being made to
purchase property from the nearby land holder and widen the road. It is also
clear that electricity is available in the area and there are drinking water sources.
Whatever that be, the contempt proceedings can be initiated against a person
only if there is a wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order,
writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a
court. Here is a case where when the writ petition came up for hearing the
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation has submitted before this Court that the
Corporation is prepared to hand over the requisite land for implementing the
Scheme. It is an admitted fact that there was some delay on the part of the
Corporation in handing over the land, which was no doubt violative of the
directions contained in the judgment to hand over land within the period of six
months to the Government. Admittedly the corporation has filed a petition to
review the Judgment and even after that there was delay on the part of the
corporation to hand over the land. Anyhow the land is now handed over to the
Revenue Department and therefore, it cannot be said that the delay occurred on
the part of the Secretary of the Corporation to complete the process, especially
consequent to the difficult times faced by the State due to the flood occurred in
the year 2019 and the emergent situation of COVID-19 pandemic during the
years 2020 and 2021. Anyhow taking into account the entire factual situations,
I am unable to find that there was wilful disobedience on the part of the
Secretary of the Corporation to comply with the directions contained in the
judgment. Even assuming that there was disobedience that itself cannot
constitute a contempt unless this Court is of the opinion that the disobedience
was so wilful and deliberate in nature so as to affect the prestige and dignity of
this Court. It is an admitted fact that the State of Kerala was facing difficulties
through the years 2018 & 2019 due to unprecedented flood situation and in 2020
& 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the light of the fact situations, I do not find any reason to proceed with
contempt against the Secretary. Needless to say, contempt petition fails,
accordingly it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that, if the petitioner has any
grievance against the property handed over by the Corporation of
Thiruvananthapuram, it is for the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 181/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT
DATED 05.04.2019 IN WPC NO.17364/2013 AND WPC
NO.28661/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE CARD
DATED 27.04.219.
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED
28.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE CARD
DATED 30.10.2019.
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN REVIEW PETITION
NO.1139/2019 DATED 19.08.2020.
