In a contempt petition filed by revision petitioners challenging the entry of Revenue officials into disputed land covered by a status quo order, the court rejected the allegation of contempt. The judge found that erecting a board did not justify holding respondents guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1940
Con.Case(C).No. 1034 of 2018 IN CRPLR. 360/2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2017 IN I.A.NO.1568 OF 2017 IN CRP(LR) 360/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/REVISION PETITIONERS IN CRP(L.R)NO.360 OF 2017
BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.DIAS
SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SMT.MARIA ELIZABETH WILSON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN CRP(L.R)NO.360 OF 2017:
1. S.SHAHJAHAN
2. VRINDA DEVI.N.R,
3. JYOTHY.V.K,
BY ADV.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 1034 of 2018 IN CRPLR. 360/2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2017 IN IA NO.1568 OF 2017 IN CRP(LR) NO.360 OF 2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE B : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.5.2018 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPIES MARKED TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ANNEXURE C : PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE RESPONDENTS ATTEMPTED TO TRESPASS AND FLOUT THE STATUS-QUO ORDER
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:
ANNEXURE R2(A) PHOTOCOPY OF HTE MAHAZAR PREPARED ON 20.5.2017
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------Cont. Case (C) No.1034 of 2018
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2
Cont. Case (C) No.1034/2018
counsel for the petitioners, in contumacious violation of this order, respondents 2 and 3, as per the direction of the 1st respondent, entered the property on 8.5.2018 by removing a gate fixed on the compound wall and erected a board showing that the property belonged to the Revenue Department of the State.
3
Cont. Case (C) No.1034/2018
which made the habitation in the nearby properties dangerous. Using the public way also became difficult and dangerous due to the reptile menace. Numerous children are daily using the way and nearby properties. Due to that the people in the locality got agitated and they started complaining about that. Under those circumstances, me and respondent No.3 decided to clean up the property by removing bushes, creepers, undergrowth etc.
5. Learned Senior Government Pleader contended that
they have not done any action to change the nature and lie of the property and respondents have not committed any waste as well.
4
Cont. Case (C) No.1034/2018
With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE
JV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents acted in contempt of court by entering the property and removing bushes despite a status quo order.
Whether erection of a board by revenue authorities without prior court permission amount to contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.J. Cherry Babu
E.S. Jose
S. Shahjahan
Vrinda Devi N.R.
Jyothy V.K.
A. Hariprasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
