Kurian Varghese vs Vishnu Raj
2022 Latest Caselaw 2699 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                         CON.CASE(C) NO. 164 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17347/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:

             KURIAN VARGHESE
             AGED 73 YEARS
             S/O.VARGHESE KURIAN, RESIDING AT VENGAL MADAYIL,
             NEDUMPRAM PANCHAYATH, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE.

             BY ADVS.
             V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
             APOORVA RAMKUMAR



RESPONDENTS:

             VISHNU RAJ
             FATHER'S NAME NO KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, THE
             REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, P.O.FORT KOCHI,
             ERNAKULAM - 682 001.

             SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP


     THIS     CONTEMPT   OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO.164/2022               2

                                JUDGMENT

This Contempt of Court case has been filed with

the allegation that, in spite of the specific

directions of this Court in the judgment dated

27/08/2021, the respondent has not yet completed

proceedings for fixing the Fair Value of the

properties involved.

2. The afore submissions of Sri.V.Ramkumar

Nambiar - learned counsel for the petitioner, were

controverted by the learned Senior Government

Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, saying that, pending

this contempt case, the Fair Value of the properties

involved has been already determined and that steps

for its publication, under the provisions of Section

28 of the Kerala Stamp Act, is underway. She

submitted that this will be concluded without any

avoidable delay.

3. On hearing the learned Senior Government

Pleader as afore, Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar submitted

that if orders have already been issued determining

the Fair Value, then this Court may direct its

publication within a time frame.

4. Even though I do not propose to fix a time

frame for such purpose, the fact remains that it is

the obligation of the respondent to publish the

determined Fair Value as per law.

I, therefore, close this contempt case,

recording the afore submissions of the learned

Senior Government Pleader; with an adscititious

direction to the respondent to ensure that

publication of the determined Fair Value is done as

expeditiously as is possible, without any avoidable

delay.

Needless to say, the statutory liberty of the

petitioner to prefer Appeals against the determined

Fair Value is also reserved; for which purpose, all

contentions are left open.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/11.3

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 164/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.17347/2021 DATED 27/08/2021.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 16/9/2021.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARE SIGNED BY THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT ON 17/9/2021.