This contempt case alleging non-compliance with an order for property measurement was closed after the court accepted that measurement had been initiated and proceedings were pending with the Local Self Government Tribunal.
Contempt case closed.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 20TH MAGHA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 1410 of 2017
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32361/2015 DATED 03-03-2017.
PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT:
SHAHIM K.B. AGED 42, S/O BEERANKUNJI, KOCHIKKARAN VADAKE VEETIL, AISWARYA GARDENS, VAKAYIL LANE, KOORKENCHERY P.O., THRISSUR-680007.
BY ADV.SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
NIZARUDHEEN M., (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY TO CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, CO-OPERATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001.
BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Con.Case(C).No. 1410 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2017 IN WPC.NO.32361 OF 2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL ---------------------/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
========================= Cont.Case (C) No.1410 of 2017 ========================== Dated this the 9th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
This contempt of court case has been filed alleging that the judgment of this Court, dated 03.03.2017, in W.P.(C) No.32361 of 2015 has not been complied with. In the judgment in question, noticing a controversy as to the real extent of land owned by the writ petitioner, I had directed the Secretary of the Corporation of Thrissur to cause physical measurement of his property by the Taluk Surveyor in the presence of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, who is the contesting party. The petitioner says that no such measurement has been done and has thus filed this case.
2
Cont.Case (C) No.1410 of 2017
of land. The learned standing counsel adds that a subsequent order was issued, based on such measurement, to demolish the petitioner's construction, which has been challenged by him before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned standing counsel says that there is, therefore, nothing left in this contempt case to be considered and that the judgment has been complied with.
In such circumstances, recording the above factual situation, I close this contempt case.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
stu
Cont.Case (C) No.1410 of 2017
3
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
========================= Cont.Case (C) No.1410 of 2017
========================== Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2017
JUDGMENT
This case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent herein has violated the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 03.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No.32361 of 2015. In the judgment in question, this Court had directed the respondent as under:
“The Secretary will be obligated by the terms of this judgment to issue a proper notice with a minimum of 7 days in advance to the petitioner and the fourth respondent and cause the inspection and measurement of the property by the Taluk Surveyor as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the verification of the property also be done with the village records, because, what is now shown to be in his possession is also an extent of Government puramboke, which according to him, required to be executed in such verification. The Secretary will advert to this contention of the petitioner also and verify the property in the manner that is required in law and adverting to the various documents that may be produced before it by the parties and with the assistance of such officers or Competent Authorities
4
Cont.Case (C) No.1410 of 2017
as would be required.”
respondent says that in terms of the directions of this Court, the Corporation had already made a requisition to the Taluk Surveyor but that he had not alloted a date for measurement of the property until now. According to Sri.Poduval, the Taluk Surveyor has now intimated the Corporation that he will inspect the property on 25.08.2017. He says that once such inspection is concluded, the Corporation will complete the process directed in the judgment, within a further period of two months thereafter.
Taking note of the submissions made by Sri.Poduval, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I deem it appropriate to close this contempt of court case, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek a rehearing of this case in case the measurement is not initiated by the Taluk Surveyor on 25.08.2017 or if the respondent herein does not complete the rest of the process within two months thereafter.
This contempt case is thus closed.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
stu
SHAHIM K.B.
CORPORATION OF THRISSUR (REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY NIZARUDHEEN M.)
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
