R.Sheeja vs K.G.Mohan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6228 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 672 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 2642/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
                           KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) 2642/2022:

          R.SHEEJA
          AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.R.M. PARAMESHWARAN,
          SWARARAGASUDHA, SREECHITRA NAGAR, PANGODE,
          THIRUVANANTHPURAM, PIN - 695006
          BY ADVS.
          MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A
          T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
          K.P.MAJEED
          K.M.MOHAMMED YUSUFF (M-1323)
          SHANKAR V.
          T.A.MOHAMMED SANOOJ

RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) 2642/2022:

          K.G.MOHAN,
          (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
          PETITIONER), THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
          L.R. TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE, KOTTAIKAKAM,
          PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHPURAM - 695004
          BY ADV.
          SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY - GP.



     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case (C) No.672 of 2023
                                      :2:


                     DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
                 =========================
                     Con.Case (C) No.672 of 2023
                ==========================
                 Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023

                                    JUDGMENT

Though the learned Government Pleader - Sri.Riyal Devassy,

submits that the directions in the judgment have been fully

complied with by the respondent issuing an order dated

05.06.2023, produced along with memo dated 06.06.2023 -

Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently

asserted that said order is in blatant disregard to the authority of

this Court.

2. Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez pointed out that even though this

Court has, in two judgments - including the one involved in this

case, specifically directed the Tahsildar to advert to the report,

dated 06.11.2020, of the District Superintendent of Survey,

Thiruvananthapuram, apart from peripherally mentioning the

same, there is no proper consideration of it at all. He argued that,

therefore, the new order issued is only an attempt to circumvent

the directions of this Court.

3. Sri.Riyal Devassy - learned Government Pleader, in

response, submitted that, as is evident from the new order, the

respondent has found that even the report of the District

Superintendent of Survey, Thiruvananthapuram, would show that Con.Case (C) No.672 of 2023

the petitioner's grievance would not fall under the Kerala Land

Conservancy Act. He, however, conceded that there is no specific

mention in the order as to how the Tahsildar had considered the

said report, including the directions therein. He, therefore, prayed

that this Court grant another opportunity to the respondent to

issue a fresh order, which he undertook to place on record within

one month.

4. I am certain that the afore suggestion of the learned

Government Pleader is the most apposite in the given

circumstances.

In the afore circumstances, I close this Contempt of Court

Case; leaving liberty to the respondent to rehear the petitioner in

terms of the judgment of this Court and to issue a fresh order, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For the afore purpose,

the petitioner shall appear before the respondent at 11 am on

20.06.2023.

I also leave liberty to the petitioner to seek rehearing of this

contempt case, if the afore undertakings are violated by the

respondent in any manner whatsoever.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE anm Con.Case (C) No.672 of 2023

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 672/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure- 1 ONLINE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 18/03/2022 IN W.P.(C) 2642/2022 Annexure- 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 8/12/2020 IN WP(C) 27110/2020 Annexure- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, DATED 23/2/2023 Annexure- 4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LAWYER NOTICE DATED 5/3/2023, THROUGH PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT