Mathew Joseph Vs S.Ramesh Kumar, Tehsildar

¶1

01 21.08.2024 Ct. No. 11 Jayanta

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (SPECIAL JURISDICTION)

¶3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR

¶4

CPAN 009 of 2021 (Through Video Conference)

¶5

Mathew Joseph vs Ramesh Kumar, Tehsildar in MA 005 of 2018

¶6

Ms. Anjali Nag

¶7

….For the Petitioner/applicant. Mr. V.D. Sivabalam ….. For the alleged contemnor.

¶8

The present contempt application has been preferred alleging violation of an order dated 6^th February, 2018 passed in a mandamus appeal being MA 005 of 2018. The operative part of the said order runs as follows:-

¶9

‘As there is a dispute among the parties pertaining to the issue of correction of the sketch map, we modify the order impugned to the effect that the appellant no. 2 shall demarcate the writ petitioner’s land on the basis of the record entry maintained by the authorities. The said exercise shall be completed by appellant no. 2 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned including the respondents herein.’

¶10

Ms. Nag, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/applicant submits that in spite of communication of the said order, the alleged contemnor

¶11

2

¶12

had not demarcated the petitioner’s land on the basis of the record entry maintained by the authorities.

¶13

Drawing our attention to annexure ‘P-1’ of the contempt application, she submits that the petitioner’s land pertains to khasra nos. 34/1 and 34/2 comprising of 0.135 hectares and 0.0150 hectares respectively. The total area of land was thus of 1500 square meters. Such record entries would not tally with the purported report filed by the alleged contemnor on 24^th May, 2019. The contents of the report are based on sub-division map and not the actual record entries.

¶14

Mr. Sivabalam, learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor denies and disputes the contention of Ms. Nag and drawing our attention to the averments made in the affidavit-of-compliance, he submits that pursuant to the direction of the Court the land was demarcated on 2^nd April, 2018, 09^th May, 2018, 27^th June, 2018 and 22^nd April, 2019 by engaging revenue surveyor and in presence of the petitioner’s son and the adjacent recorded tenants. In view thereof, the allegation of non-compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s directions is absolutely unfounded.

¶15

He further submits that the land bearing survey no. 34/1/15 of 0.0200 hectares stands recorded in the name of one Sri Sakthivel but the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the same. An area of 0.0026 hectares in land bearing survey no. 35/1/1 is available as ‘road’ but the petitioner is also illegally occupying the same. The petitioner is also contesting a Revenue Case No. 40/TPB/2021.

¶16

3

¶17

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶18

It appears that demarcation was conducted on diverse dates on and from 2^nd April, 2018 to 22^nd April, 2019 and in presence of the petitioner’s son. It further appears that there is a serious dispute as regards occupation of the concerned plots of land amongst the petitioner and the adjacent recorded tenants. Such factual dispute cannot be decided in a contempt application.

¶19

The direction of this Court was to conduct demarcation on the basis of the record entry maintained by the authorities. Such step appears to have been taken by the alleged contemnor and as such we do not find any intentional or deliberate violation of the order.

¶20

In view thereof, the contempt application is dismissed.

¶21

It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the contempt application shall not prevent the petitioner from challenging the demarcation before the appropriate forum, if so, advised and in accordance with law.

¶22

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶23

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)

Mathew Joseph v. S.Ramesh Kumar, Tehsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew Joseph v. S.Ramesh Kumar, Tehsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salma Khatun Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rokeya Ruksana Bibi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sumit Manna Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bata Krishna Mandal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

K. Ramana Rao Vs Union of India and Ors.

Suman Paul Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.