Dismissed

Ramakrishnan v. P.P.Pramod

Kerala HC13 Sept 2012Con.Case(C)/994/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the petitioner alleged destruction of his crops in violation of a stay order. The respondents argued the land belonged to the State's reserve forest. The court held the identity of the land was disputed and the Collector had already rejected the claim, precluding a finding of wilful disobedience.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's contempt petition closed without imposing action on respondents.

Ramakrishnan Vs P.P.Pramod — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 994 of 2012 (S) IN WPC/34359/2011

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.34359/2011 DATED 21-12-2011

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

S/O.KUNJAN, RESIDING AT KAVALMARAVIL HOUSE VELLAKKAYAM, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.J.GEORGE KUNNUMPURATH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. P.P.PRAMOD

¶13

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶14

FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER

¶15

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM

¶16

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.

¶17

2. CHINNU JANARDANAN

¶18

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶19

FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER

¶20

THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MULLARINGADU, PIN-685582.

¶21

BY ADV.SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAMES KURIAN

¶22

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

COC NO.994/12

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶26

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 21.12.11 IN WP (C) No. NO.34359/11.

¶27

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT TO THE THAZILDAR THODUPUZHA ON 27/2/12.

¶28

EXTS OF R1

¶29

ANNEXURE	R1(a):	TRUE COPY OF	NO.K2-53877/2011 DT.5.3.12.
ANNEXURE 13884/12.	R1(b):	TRUE COPY OF	ORDER DT 14.6.12 WP(C) No.
ANNEXURE	R1(c):	TRUE COPY OF	MAHAZAR DT 18.6.12.
ANNEXURE	R1(d):	TRUE COPY OF	MAHAZAR DT 19.6.12.
ANNEXURE (C) No. 1	R1(e): 3884/12	TRUE COPY OF WITHOUT EXHIBIT	THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN WP S.
ANNEXURE No. NO.13	R1(f): 884/12.	TRUE COPY OF	ORDER DT.22.6.12 IN WP(C)
ANNEXURE DT 26.6.1	R1(g): 2	TRUE COPY OF	FORM 1 REPORT WITH MAHAZAR

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================

¶34

Cont.Case (C) NO. 994 OF 2012

¶35

=======================

¶36

Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2012

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶39

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶40

WP(C) No. 34359/11 filed by the petitioner was

¶41

disposed of by judgment dated 21^st of December, 2011, para 2 and 3 of which reads as under;

¶42

“2. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and also learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents, I am satisfied that at this stage all that is required is that the District Collector should take appropriate action in the matter in terms of Rule 8 of Rules framed under the Act.

¶43

3. This the District Collector shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. In the meantime, if as stated by the petitioner he is in possession of 2.5 acres of land in Vannappuram Village, his enjoyment thereof shall not be disturbed”.

¶44

The case of the petitioner is that in violation of the direction that the petitioner's possession of 2.5 acres of land in Vannappuram village shall not be disturbed until orders are passed on the petitioner's application, on 29/12/11, his agricultural crops were destroyed. It is alleging the above, this

¶45

:2 :

¶46

COC.No.994/12

¶47

contempt petition has been filed.

¶48

To substantiate the contention, petitioner relies on Annexure A2 report made by the Village Officer, Vannappuram to Tahsildar, Thodupuzha. However, statement filed by the 1^st respondent show that according to them, the petitioner is in possession of about 3 acres of land which is included in the list prepared in a joint verification conducted by the Forest and Revenue Department at Sl.No.491. It is stated that in so far as the 2.5 acres of land claimed in the writ petition, which is the subject matter of this petition also is concerned, it is stated thus;

¶49

It is submitted that on 20.12.11, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 34359/11 before this Hon'ble Court, claiming right over 2.50 acres of forest land within specified boundaries. The land claimed by him in the WP(C) is a part of the 1980 cashew plantation, Vellakkayam, in Mullaringadu Range. The above plantation has an extent of 54 ha. It was planted with cashew during 1980 by the Forest department and maintained during the subsequent years. It lies contiguous to the occupied lands in Vellakkayam settlement and is separated there from, by permanent cairns, erected by the respondents during 1988-89, which remain intact along the boundaries now also.

¶50

It is further stated in para 5 thus:-

¶51

“It is most respectfully submitted that the land claimed by the petitioner in the WP(C) is part of

¶52

COC.No.994/12

¶53

:3 :

¶54

the 1980 Vellakkayam cashew plantation in Mullaringadu Range. It is a part of the notified 'Thodupuzha Reserve'. It has been protected by the Forest department and the petitioner or any other private persons has no sort of interest or right there.”

¶55

6. Respondents further say that in pursuance to the order

¶56

in the writ petition, the claim of the petitioner was considered by the District Collector and that the same has been rejected by Annexure R1(a) which is under challenge before this Court in WP (C) No. 13884/12. It is also stated that in that writ petition, initially a stay order was passed and that subsequently that order was modified by Annexure R1(f) order confining the operation of stay to the residential property of the petitioner.

¶57

In the reply statement filed by the petitioner, what he attempts to say is that the 2.5 acres claimed by him lies contiguously to the 3 acres mentioned in para 3 of the statement. In other words, what the petitioner now pleads is that he is in possession of about 5.5 acres.

¶58

Evidently therefore while the petitioner contends that he is in possession of 5.5 acres, respondents contend that the 2.5 acres claimed is not in the possession of the petitioner and that it is a cashew plantation forming part of a reserve forest. It is also

¶59

:4 :

¶60

COC.No.994/12

¶61

their case that under the cover of the judgment, petitioner attempted to convert this land into new plantation. Respondents further state that on account of the above, they had to take preventive action which they were entitled to.

¶62

Therefore, this is a case where the identity of the land is in dispute and according to the respondents, what they have taken is only a legal action of a preventive nature. Such action taken by the respondents cannot be said to be wilful disobedience of the directions in the judgment particularly in a case where the District Collector himself rejected the petitioner's claim as per Annexure R1(a). Therefore, I am not persuaded to take further action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents.

¶63

Contempt petition is closed.

¶64

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶65

¶66

COC.No.994/12

¶67

:5 :

Ramakrishnan v. P.P.Pramod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. P.P.Pramod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Quality Constructions Vs Project Engineering Company Ltd.

Veenus Traders Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

M/S.Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Athira Mohan Vs Salomi

M/S.Prabhu Steels Vs the Thrikkakara Municipality

V.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala & Others