Mary Lonappan vs Jafar Malik
2022 Latest Caselaw 5592 Ker

CON.CASE(C) NO. 113 OF 2022      1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                  CON.CASE(C) NO. 113 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.20546/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

           MARY LONAPPAN
           AGED 77 YEARS
           W/O. C.A. LONAPPAN,
           CHAKKANAT HOUSE, AYINI NADA,
           MARADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

           BY ADVS.
           R.SANJITH
           C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
           CHARUTHA BHAIJU
           P.S.ANJU
           ANOOP GEORGE


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 :

    1      JAFAR MALIK, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
           THE PETITIONER,
           DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
           CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU,
           ERNAKULAM 682 030

    2      SEERAM SAMBASIVA RAO, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT
           KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
           THE DIRECTOR,
           DIRECTORATE OF SURVEYS AND LAND RECORDS,
           SURVEY BHAVAN, COTTON HILL ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695014.

           SMT SURYA BINOY, SR GP


    THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 113 OF 2022             2




                                 JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case (C) is filed alleging non-compliance of the

directions issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment. By the aforesaid

judgment, this Court had directed the respondent to comply with the

directions in Annexure-A2 judgment taking note of Exts.P13 and P15 and to

conclude the entire procedure.

2. The learned Government Pleader has placed on record a copy

of the order dated 19.03.2022 issued by the District Collector and it is

submitted that the directions have been complied with and orders have

been passed.

3. Sri. R. Sanjith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

pointed out that while disposing of the matter by Annexure-A2 judgment,

this Court had specifically directed the District Collector to furnish a copy of

the report dated 31.10.2019 of the Tahsildar (LR), Kanayannur, to the

petitioner. Various other directions were also issued. According to the

learned counsel, though an order has been passed, the directions have not

been complied with in its letter and spirit. Even the report of the Tahsildar

was not handed over.

4. Now that an order has been passed, if the petitioner is in any

way aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by initiating

appropriate proceedings. Reserving such right, this Contempt Case (C) is

closed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 113/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/10/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.20546/2020 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/11/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.30957/2019

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 24.11.2021, ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.