Mary Koshi Karuvelil vs Vishnu Raj
2022 Latest Caselaw 2700 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. 162 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17349/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                               KERALA
PETITIONER:

          MARY KOSHI KARUVELIL
          AGED 57 YEARS
          W/O.KOSHY ZACHARIA, RESIDING AT KARUVELIL GRACIA,
          VILLA NO.27 D, ABAD RAINBOW RETREAT, IRUMPANAM, KOCHI
          - 682 309.

          BY ADVS.
          V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
          APOORVA RAMKUMAR



RESPONDENT:

          VISHNU RAJ
          FATHER'S NAME NOT 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.162/2022                   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) 162/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.17349/2021 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 CARD SIGNED BY THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT ON 17/9/2021.