Maheshkumar V vs A.N. Anitha Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 641 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
   THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
                   CON.CASE(C) NO. 1933 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT in WP(C) 455/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC

           MAHESHKUMAR V
           AGED 43 YEARS
           S/O. M. VENKITESAN, 11/546, VENKIDADHRI HOUSE,
           HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
           PIN - 678001

           BY ADVS.
           JACOB SEBASTIAN
           K.V.WINSTON
           ANU JACOB

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC

           A.N. ANITHA DEVI
           AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
           OFFICIATING AS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
           MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678001

           BY SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN      STANDING COUNSEL

THIS   CONTEMPT   OF   COURT   CASE   (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023,       TE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 COC No.1933 of 2022
                                        2



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023

W.P(C) No.455 of 2022 was disposed of with the

following directions:

"The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the Building Permit application submitted by the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P5 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Ext.P2 Kerala Land Utilisation order. A decision on the application shall be taken within a period of one month."

The petitioner has filed Contempt of Court Case alleging that

there is violation of the directions contained in the judgment.

2. The Standing Counsel for the respondent produced

Communication No.143-21-22/E6 dated 26.07.2022 wherein,

the Superintendent/Assistant Engineer of the Palakkad

Municipality has communicated that permission can be

granted only for building of 120 square metre area. The

petitioner was required to submit a revised Building

Permit/Plan in order to consider his Building Permit

application.

COC No.1933 of 2022

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the

communication dated 26.07.2022 will not satisfy the directions

of this Court, because in the communication dated

26.07.2022, the impact of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is

not considered.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that once a

permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is

obtained, the petitioner will be entitled to deal with land as if it

is not a paddy land or wetland. The respondent is bound to

give approved Building Permits without regard to the

provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008.

5. The petitioner would state that the communication

dated 26.07.2022 does not show that the direction of this

Court to consider the matter in the light of Ext.P2 Kerala Land

Utilisation Order has been adhered to. Therefore, there is a

defiance of the lawful orders of this Court and the respondent

is liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Court

Act.

COC No.1933 of 2022

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondent.

7. The direction of this Court was to consider the

Building Permit application submitted by the petitioner in

accordance with law, taking into consideration Ext.P2

proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and

Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon. It is true that the

communication dated 26.07.2022 does not reflect to the

proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. That is

because the application of the petitioner has been returned

not due to anything related to the Kerala Land Utilisation

Order.

8. In such circumstances, non-reference to Kerala Land

Utilisation Order in the communication dated 26.07.2022

cannot be treated as one ignoring the Kerala Land Utilisation

Order.

In view of the above, I find that there is no Contempt of

Court involved. The Contempt of Court Case is dismissed COC No.1933 of 2022

granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the

communication now made, if the petitioner is so advised.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm COC No.1933 of 2022

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1933/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 455 OF 2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R-1 (a) Communication No BA/144/21-22/E6 issued on 26-07-2022 by the Municipality