K.V.Shaji vs P.Anwar Sadath
2022 Latest Caselaw 448 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                 TH
 THURSDAY, THE 13   DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943

                CON.CASE(C) NO. 2074 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6433/2021 OF HIGH COURT
                         OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:

          K.V.SHAJI
          AGED 52 YEARS
          S/O. K.V VELAYUDHAN,
          SAMATHA AMBALAKKANDY HOUSE,
          PULLIPPARAMBU P.O., CHELEMBRA,
          MALAPPURAM-673 631

          BY ADVS.
          PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
          E.V.BABYCHAN


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     P.ANWAR SADATH
          CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD,
          THAMARASSERY & DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
          KOZHIKODE,PIN-673 574

    2     BALARAJAN.K.,
          ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR (TAHSILDAR (LR)
          THAMARASSERY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
          THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE,PIN-673 573


          SRI M..H HANIL KUMAR SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER



     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 2074 OF 2021

                                     2



                                JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case is preferred alleging non-compliance of the

directions issued by this Court in judgment dated 24.3.2021 in W.P.(C)

No.6433/2021.

2. By the above judgment, this Court had directed the

respondents 4 to 5 to expedite the proceedings initiated under Section 87

of the Land Reforms Act, 1963 and to conclude the same within a period

of six months from 25.3.2021.

3. In the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent on 21.12.2021, it is

stated that appropriate action would be taken against Mr. P.V. Anwar and

his family who are holding excess land exceeding the ceiling area after

collecting the report through the authorized officer. However, no time

frame was mentioned.

4. This Court, by separate orders, had directed the respondents

to disclose in no uncertain terms, the time frame within which the entire

proceedings can be concluded. In the additional affidavit filed on

1.1.2022, it is stated that Sri. P.V.Anwar and his family are holding 22.82

Acres in Kozhikode and Malappuram District and since it was prima facie CON.CASE(C) NO. 2074 OF 2021

found that the family is holding more than 12 standard Acres, the

respondents have decided to register a suo motu case. It is stated that

statutory notices have been issued to the parties concerned asking them

to appear on 27.01.2022 and it is undertaken that the entire proceedings

can be concluded within a period of five months from 01.01.2022.

5. Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner points out that the entire proceeding is a farce as the aforesaid

P.V. Anwar, while submitting his nomination for contesting to the State

Legislative Assembly had filed an affidavit disclosing the extent of

properties owned by him and his family members and its details including

the survey numbers and area. From the affidavit, it is obvious that the

family is owning property to the extent of 226.82 Acres. It is submitted

that though the data of the land owned by the aforesaid person is known

to the respondents as the entire data has been digitized, the concerned

authorities have been delaying the proceedings by calling for a report from

one authority or the other. It is submitted by the learned counsel that he

has no objection in granting further time to comply with the directions, but

he submits that the petitioner also be permitted to participate in the

proceedings and to produce the documents in his possession. CON.CASE(C) NO. 2074 OF 2021

6. Having considered the submissions and taking note of the

facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents can be

granted the time as requested in the additional affidavit dated 01.01.2022.

However, I find from paragraph No. 3 of the additional affidavit that

neither Sri. P.V.Anwar nor his authorised representative had appeared

before the respondents on 30.12.2021, the date on which the case was

posted for hearing. It is made clear that efforts made to protract the

proceedings shall not be entertained and steps shall be taken to ensure

that the proceedings are expedited. The petitioner in the writ petition, Sri.

K.V. Shaji, shall also be afforded an opportunity to participate in the

proceedings and to produce the documents in his possession.

7. Resultantly, this Contempt Case is closed directing the

respondents to conclude the proceedings within a period of five months

from 01.01.2022 subject to the observations and directions above.

Sd/ RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

avs CON.CASE(C) NO. 2074 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2074/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure I TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE LAND BOARD NO.LBB 10055/17 DATED 19.12.2017

Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.6433 OF 2021 DATED 24.03.2021

Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 16.04.2021 ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS 1,2