Kerala High Court
M.K.Gopi vs Margaret on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
Thursday, the 12th day of January 2023 / 22nd Pousha, 1944
IA.NO.1/2022 IN CON.CASE(C) NO. 2061 OF 2019 IN WP(C) 31600/2018
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
M.K.GOPI,AGED 70 YEARS,S/O.M.K.KUTTAN, GOPIKA,FORTY NAGAR, CHEROOR,
THRISSUR-680008.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. MARGARET, THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680008.
2. AFSANA PARVEEN, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,1ST FLOOR, CIVIL
STATION, CIVIL LANE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE-680003.
3. G.KAVITHA, LOCAL SELF MONITORING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS
CHAIRMAN/CONVEYOR AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, VILVATTOM,
THRISSUR-680008.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to reopen the Contempt
Case 2061/2019 in WP(C) 31600/2018 and to proceed with the contempt
proceeding against the respondents.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof,this Court's judgment dated
02/07/2021 and upon hearing the arguments of C.A.ANOOP, Advocates for the
petitioner in IA/COC and of SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for the respondents
in IA/COC, the court passed the following:
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
------------------------------
I.A No.1 of 2022
in
Con.Case (C) No.2061 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023
ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking to re-
open the contempt petition, which was closed as per judgment
dated 12.03.2021. The said order reads thus;
"The judgment in question was rendered by this Court as early as
on 27.09.2018 and the contempt petition was filed before this
Court on 11.10.2019. An affidavit is placed before this Court by
the respondents. Hovwever, when the matter came up on the
previous posting, the learned Senior Government Pleader was
directed to take instructions in the matter.
2. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted that the
report from the KSREC is not received and orders will be passed
when the report is received. It is surprising to note that even
though the judgment was passed 2 ½ years before, the
respondent has not cared to secure the KSREC report.
3. In that view of the matter, it can only be seen that there is
deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents in not complying
with the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the
respondents are directed to comply with the directions contained in
the judgment, after securing report from the KSREC, within two
weeks, and report compliance of the judgment."
I.A No.1 of 2022 in
The ground raised by the petitioner is that the
Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered the
application as directed by this Court in the Judgment, and
later observed in the order passed in the Contempt petition
which is sought to be reopened. However, today when the
matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader has
submitted a memo dated 5th January 2023 along with a
communication dated 23.12.2022 addressed to the
Advocate General and an order passed by the Local Level
Monitoring Committee of Peringavu Village, from where it
could be gathered that the property of the petitioner
included in the Data Bank constituted as per the provisions
of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act
cannot be removed. Therefore, it is clear that an order is
passed by the statutory authority and it is for the petitioner
to pursue further remedies against the same in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, 2008. Circumstances being
so, I do not find any reason to re-open the contempt
petition, accordingly it is dismissed. However, the liberty of
I.A No.1 of 2022 in
the petitioner to approach the statutory authority against
the order passed by the Local Level Monitoring Authority is
left open.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
AP
12-01-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
