In a contempt petition alleging disobedience of a high court direction to complete an enquiry, the court held that the respondent's report containing incidental observations on land title did not constitute wilful disobedience. The case was dismissed.
The contempt case was closed with no finding of wilful disobedience.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 118 of 2018 IN WPC. 15375/2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15375/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26-10-2016
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.9
T.J.JIMMY AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.THARAYIL JOSEPH, THARAYIL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., KEEZHMADU, ALUVA-683112.
BY ADV.SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.2:
P.MADHU LIMAYE AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.P.VASU, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, SURVEY DEPARTMENT, SURVEY LAND RECORDS, CIVIL STATION, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.
R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SURIN GEORGE IYPE
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
Cont. Case (C) No.118 of 2018
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, C.J.
This petition is filed alleging disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.15375 of 2014. By the judgment in the writ petition the following direction was issued to the Deputy Director of Survey:
“3. Subsequent to the issuance of the aforenoted order dated 08.07.2016, the District Deputy Director of Survey, Trikkakara (respondent No.2) has issued a notice notifying a site inspection to peruse documents and to ascertain the true state of affairs. Therefore, when such proceedings are carried forward by the 2nd respondent, it will be open to any other parties to these writ petitions to show to the said officer the materials on which they claim their eligibility to hold on the possession. Obviously, question of title is not a matter for determination through that executive authority. Hence, the question whether there should be any survey or re-survey should not now be a matter of anxiety for any other parties to these writ petitions since it will be open to the District Deputy Director of Survey to first consider the materials that the parties have to offer, give
Cont. Case (C) No.118 of 2018
-2-
them opportunity of hearing and then decide as to the course open to that officer in accordance with law. Obviously, the said officer will ensure that the jurisdictional limits are well maintained rather than any adjudication into issues for judicial determination by any court or upper authority......”
“As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Survey Deputy Director, Ernakulam was directed to take decision on the basis of the aforesaid documents and connected records. But, realizing the fact that only on site inspection, the exact survey number of the land involved in the above case and in possession of the said parties could be ascertained and on the basis of the report dated 10/7/17 submitted before the Hon'ble High Court, legal advice (Annexure 12) was rendered vide Ref. (2) and after giving notice (Annexure 13) well in advance, field inspection was conducted on 7/9/2017 and the Hon'ble High Court passed order vide Ref. (3) justifying the same. On field inspection it is found that the entire land in dispute comprises in old survey 970/1A (Sketch Annexure 14 appended).
-3-
Cont. Case (C) No.118 of 2018
However, as per the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1964, the Land Tribunals can issue pattayam to property in possession prior to 1/1/1970. As per resurvey rules, name of a person who obtained pattayam or jenmom right alone appears in the basic tax register. After entry of name of a person is made in the basic tax register, jenmom right need not necessarily be given under any separate proceeding. In view of the fact that resurvey proceedings were completed in old survey No.970/1A of Aluva East Village in 1994, basic tax register was prepared and even if it is erroneous, name of Raphel and others was entered in the basic tax register, it is not clear on what ground the Ernakulam Land Tribunal Tahsildar granted pattayam and issued Jenmom right again during 2003-2006. Obviously the Tahsildar, Land Tribunal did not make any effort to scrutinize the settlement register, village estimate, previous basic tax register, resurvey land register or resurvey basic tax register prior to grant of pattayam. Taking into consideration the defect in the basic tax register prepared as per resurvey and the irregularity in the pattayam proceedings of the Ernakulam Land Tribunal, the Koodal Manikyam Devaswom - the owners as per records, can file appeal before the Land Tribunal Appellate Authority, Alappuzha.
As per document No.105/1120 ME, the absolute ownership of old survey 970/1A, 1B of Aluva Village, Keezhmadu Kara was transferred to Koodal Manikyam Devaswom owner Thachudaya Kaimal alone and therefore petitioners 1, 2 and 3 in WPC 15375/14 or Velloopadath Bhagavathi Temple or respondents 5 to 10 in the said case namely
-4-
Cont. Case (C) No.118 of 2018
Raphel, S/o Thomas and others and similarly the petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 4 in WPC 30779/16 or the respondents 4 to 6 in the said case have no right in the said property as per rules.
Though the pattayams were issued during the periods 2002 and 2003 and since the matter is under consideration of the Hon'ble High Court, it is suggested that the Land Tribunal Appellate Authority, Alappuzha may afford opportunity to Koodal Manikyam Devaswom if they propose to file appeal in respect of the said pattayams without considering the delay and this order is issued after completing the proceedings in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.”
Cont. Case (C) No.118 of 2018 -5-
complete the enquiry and make his report thereon. It is in exercise of that power, the respondent has submitted Annexure-A4. This report or the conclusions thereof, are mere incidental observations made by the respondent and those observations cannot affect the legal rights, if any, of the petitioner or anybody else for that matter.
The contempt case is accordingly closed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
kns/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent committed wilful disobedience of the high court judgment's direction to complete an enquiry by submitting a report containing incidental observations on title.
Whether incidental observations on land title in a compliance report justify contempt proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.J.JIMMY
P.MADHU LIMAYE
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
