In a contempt petition challenging non-compliance with a career land order, the court found no wilful disobedience as the delay was due to the reconstitution of the Taluk Land Board, accepting the respondent's undertaking to act once constituted.
Contempt proceedings disposed; respondent undertaking to comply with original order after TLB reconstitution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933
Con.Case(C).No. 674 of 2011(S)
------------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5830/2011 Dated 24/02/2011)
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
K.T. MANIKANDAN, S/O. LATE GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS, SREENILAYAM HOUSE, CHANNAMBATTA, KARATTUKURUSSI POST, CHERUPLASSERY (VIA) , PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
SMT. REMADEVI , CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD(REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER) OTTAPPALAM 679 101.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
CONTEMPT OF COURT © No. 674 OF 2011.
Dated this the 1st September, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per the judgment dated 24.02.2011 directing the first respondent to consider Ext. P3 preferred by the writ petitioner with reference to the amendment in the statutory provisions, particularly Section 7E and 84(4) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, (incorporated as per the relevant Amendment Act 2005) and to pass appropriate orders within three months, simultaneously ordering to maintain 'status quo'. The writ petitioner is stated as aggrieved of noncompliance of the said direction, stating that the same amounts to contumacious act, liable to be pursued under the Contempt of Courts Act.
CONTEMPT OF COURT © No. 674 OF 2011.
2
was given by this Court when the matter was disposed of. It is stated that, the term of the TLB, Ottappalam expired on 13.12.2010 and that steps are being pursued to have it reconstituted at the earliest. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a notice of hearing was issued to the writ petitioner pursuant to the direction given by this Court as borne by Annexure -A2 dated 07.05.2011 and that the matter could not be finalised since the TLB is still to be reconstituted. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that the case will be posted in the first sitting of the newly constituted TLB and that the matter will be finalised accordingly, without any delay.
CONTEMPT OF COURT © No. 674 OF 2011.
3
making it clear that the verdict shall be given effect to, passing final orders within three months from the date of re-constitution
of the TLB, of course, after hearing afresh.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
lk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent's explanation of pendency due to institutional reconstitution constitutes contumacious disobedience of court orders.
Whether the court should grant relief in a contempt proceeding where no wilful disobedience is found.
K.T. Manikandan
Smt. Remadevi
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
