Mampilly Antony vs Harris Rasheed
2022 Latest Caselaw 2374 Ker

Con.Case(C) No.1169/2021                       1/4

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                             PRESENT
                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
            Wednesday, the 2nd day of March 2022 / 11th Phalguna, 1943
               CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1169 OF 2021 IN WP(C)16421/2020
   PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

       1. MAMPILLY ANTONY,       AGED 82 YEARS, S/O. URUMESE, MAMPILLY HOUSE,
          AMMANKOVIL ROAD,       ERNAKULAM.
       2. JOSEPH URUMESE,        AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. URUMESE, MAMPILLY HOUSE,
          AMMANKOVIL ROAD,       ERNAKULAM.

         BY ADV K.P.SANTHI
   RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

           HARRIS RASHEED, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE
           DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI,
           KERALA - 682001.


               BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

        This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
   02.03.2022, the court on the same day passed the following:
                                      ORDER

Con.Case(C) No.1169/2021 2/4

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cont. Case (C) No. 1169 of 2021 (arising out of the judgment dated 25.8.2020 in WP(C).No.16421/2020)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2022

ORDER

Smt.K.P.Santhi, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that the respondent officer had openly

declared that he will reject the plea of the parties who

have succeeded in litigation, and that it is only on account

of the adamant and arbitrary stand of the respondent officer

that even now, he has not cared to pass final orders on the

Form 9 application filed by the petitioners, etc.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that

short time may be granted to enable him to give necessary

and strict instructions and directives to the new officer (RDO)

to ensure the immediate compliance of the directions issued

by this Court at Anx.III judgment dated 8.3.2021.

3. If the respondent RDO does not comply with the

directions issued by this Court at Anx.III or rejects the said

plea on completely untenable and unjustifiable grounds, then Con.Case(C) No.1169/2021 3/4

Cont. Case (C) No. 1169 of 2021

..2..

this Court will be constrained to take a serious view in the

matter.

List on 23.3.2022.

Hand over

Sd/-

                                                            ALEXANDER THOMAS,
                                                                   JUDGE
          MMG




02-03-2022                            /True Copy/                          Assistant Registrar
 Con.Case(C) No.1169/2021                  4/4

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1169/2021 Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.03.2021 IN CCC NO.2115 OF 2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.