Kerala High Court
K.B.Aysha Beevi vs Dr.A.Jayathilak on 28 June, 2024
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
Con.Case(C) No.1581/2021 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
Friday, the 28th day of June 2024 / 7th Ashadha, 1946
IA.NO.1/2023 IN CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1581 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 23751/2019
APPLICANTS/PETITIONERS:
1. K.B.AYSHA BEEVI, AGED 75 YEARS, D/O. BAPPU, THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O.,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 571.
2. K.B.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. BAPPU, KAVUNGADA
MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, CHOWARA P.O., ALUVA - 683 571, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
DR.A.JAYATHILAK, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to re-open the
contempt case which was closed on 17/11/2021.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, this Court's judgment dated
17/11/2021 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI,
M.K.SASEENDRAN, A.K.MAYAKRISHNAN & NARAYANAN P P, Advocates for the
applicants in IA/petitioners in COC and of SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the respondent in IA/COC, the court passed the following:
P.T.O.
Con.Case(C) No.1581/2021 2/5
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
------------------------------
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
Cont. Case(C)No.1581 of 2021
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this interlocutory application seeking
an order to reopen the contempt case, which was closed on
17.11.2021. The direction contained in paragraph 10 of Annexure
A1 judgment dated 05.11.2020 in W.P.(C)No.23751 of 2019 reads
thus;
"10. The request made by the petitioners claiming
compensation is pending consideration before the additional
7th respondent Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue (B)
Department and the Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department has already called for a report from
the Secretary, Land Board as to how the petitioner claimed
the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and
obtained Exts.P10 and P12 title certificates from the Land
Tribunal, Ernakulam in respect of the land in possession of
the Government. In such circumstances, this writ petition is
disposed of by directing the additional 7th respondent to take
an appropriate decision on the request made by the
petitioners, after obtaining a report from the Secretary,
Land Board, through the Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, with notice to the petitioners and
after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment."
2. After quoting the law laid down by the Apex Court in
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] and
Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259], it was made
clear in Annexure A1 judgment that the direction contained
therein to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue (B)
Department, is for taking an appropriate decision strictly in
accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory
provisions and also the law on the point.
3. By the order dated 17.11.2021 this Court closed the
contempt case, taking note of the Order No.REV-B2/269/2019-
REV dated 11.10.2021 passed by the respondent, a copy of which
was placed on record along with a memo dated 28.10.2021 filed
by the Special Government Pleader. In the order dated
17.11.2021, this Court recorded the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has already
complied with the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment.
4. When the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment
is only for taking a decision on the request made by the
petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, the reasons stated in
the last paragraph of the affidavit filed in support of this
interlocutory application will not enable the petitioners to seek an
order to reopen the contempt case, which has already been closed
by the order dated 17.11.2021.
In the result, this interlocutory application fails and the same
is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
JUDGE
bkn/-
28-06-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1581/2021
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.2020 IN
WPC NO.23751/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
28-06-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
