Disposed

K.A. Thomas v. Dr. Hasmukh Adhia

Kerala HC19 Sept 2017Con.Case(C)/1250/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case regarding a writ petition concerning patta issuance, the Court closed the contempt proceedings while preserving the petitioners' right to challenge the District Collector's subsequent order directing further inquiry. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty to petitioners to challenge the order passed by the District Collector.

K.A. Thomas Vs Dr. Hasmukh Adhia — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/28TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1250 of 2017 (S)

¶6

THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.26912/2008 DATED 16-12-2016.

¶7

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. K.A. THOMAS, S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 57 YEARS, KALLUMPURATH HOUSE, AASARIKKADU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. K.A. JOSEPH, S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 57 YEARS, KALLUMPURATH HOUSE, AASARIKKADU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶12

1. DR. HASMUKH ADHIA, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2. DR.K. KOWSIGAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE.

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

Con.Case(C).No. 1250 of 2017 (S)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶20

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/12/2016 IN WP(C).NO.26912/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶22

ANNEXURE R2A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. ANNEXURE R2B COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2-9246/96 DATED 19/02/1996. ANNEXURE R2C COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2-9246/96 DATED 22/02/1996. ANNEXURE R2D COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2-39305/2014 DATED 10/11/2014. ANNEXURE R2E COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/56433/2008 DATED 26/07/2017.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1250 of 2017 (S)

¶28

Dated: 19^th September, 2017

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioners are aggrieved with the action taken

¶31

by the District Collector in pursuance to the judgment.

¶32

The petitioners were concerned with the patta

¶33

issued to their mother in pursuance to the assignment made to the father, who died before the patta could be issued. This Court noticed the communication which was specifically impugned in the writ petition and found that it was on the basis of the direction in O.P. No.5914/1986. This Court called for the Judges Papers of the said Original Petition and found that though an interim order was issued, later the Original Petition itself was dismissed. Hence, the District Collector was directed to look into the issue and give full effect to the

¶34

COC No. 1250/2017

¶35

-2-

¶36

patta and allow the petitioners to pay the land tax, if the e is no other legal impediment.

¶37

The District Collector has now passed Annexure R2(e) order. It is seen from the order that the District Collector had called for the files regarding the patta, which was not available. It is also observed in the order that there were a number of assignments made, the files of which were absent in the office of the Special Tahsildar. Hence, there was an enquiry initiated on the assignments so made. Since the files were not available, the District Collector was hesitant to grant full effect to the patta without further enquiry. Hence, there was a further enquiry directed and the petitioner was provisionally permitted to pay land tax. The petitioner would be entitled to challenge Annexure R2(e) order. In any event, the enquiry has to be expedited.

¶38

COC No. 1250/2017

¶39

-3-

¶40

In such circumstance, the contempt case would

¶41

stand closed, leaving open liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order passed. No Costs.

¶42

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶43

jjj 19/9/17

K.A. Thomas v. Dr. Hasmukh Adhia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.A. Thomas v. Dr. Hasmukh Adhia

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. Janardhanan Vs Sri. Paul Antony I.A.S

Shajib .P Vs Abdul Majeed

Thilakan M.R Vs the Maintenance Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer

Nagath Rajeevan Vs District Registrar(G), Kozhikode & Ors.

Vvutty Haji Vs State of Kerala

Bhargavi Vs the Union of India and Another