Disposed

A.C.Ashok Kumar v. P.K.Santhoshakumar

Kerala HC6 Feb 2018Con.Case(C)/667/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court case, the petitioner alleged non-compliance with earlier writ orders regarding land mutation. The court observed that State Government appeals were unsuccessful and specific facts prevented proceeding against the respondent. The contempt case was closed, directing the petitioner to seek fresh mutation orders from the statutory authority within three months.

What did the court decide?

Contempt of court case closed; petitioner directed to seek mutation from statutory authority within three months.

A.C.Ashok Kumar Vs P.K.Santhoshakumar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 17TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 667 of 2009 ----------------------THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.27071/2008 DATED 29-09-2008.

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

A.C. ASHOK KUMAR, KALLARAYIL HOUSE, R/O. PURAKKATTU VADAKUMBHAGOM, CHIRAKADAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.DINNY THOMAS,

¶9

SMT.M.SRUTHY, SRI.ALBERT V.JOHN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. P.K. SANTHOSHAKUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPILLY.

¶12

ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED

¶13

2. MINI ANTONY, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 25/09/2013 IN I.A. NO.334/2013 IN COC NO.667/2009.

¶15

R1 & ADDL. R2 BY GPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR K.J. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN.

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

Con.Case(C).No. 667 of 2009

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE	I COPY W.P.	OF THE (C)NO.27	JUDGMENT 071/2008.	DATED 29/09/2008 IN
ANNEXURE	II COPY	OF THE	LAWYER NO	TICE DATED 05/02/2009.
ANNEXURE	III COPY	OF THE	REPLY DAT	ED 27/02/2009.
ANNEXURE	IV COPY	OF THE	SAID REPL	Y DATED 18/04/2009.
ANNEXURE	IV TO IX IN	I.A.NO	.333/2013
ANNEXURE	IV COPY	OF THE	ORDER DAT	ED 14/08/2009.
ANNEXURE	V COPY	OF THE	JUDGMENT	IN CCC. NO.667/2009.
ANNEXURE	VI COPY	OF THE	JUDGMENT	IN W.P.(C)NO.23398/2011.
ANNEXURE	VII COPY	OF THE	ORDER DAT	ED 11/11/2011.
ANNEXURE	VIII COPY	OF THE	JUDGMENT	IN W.P.(C)NO.17290/2012.
ANNEXURE	IX COPY	OF THE	ORDER DAT	ED 26/11/2012.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE R1A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DATED 31/05/2017.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

Cont. Case (C) No.667 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

W.P.(C) No.27071 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 2^nd respondent to effect transfer of registry in favour of the petitioner in respect of 14.33 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.343/2 of Block No.15 of Chirakadavu Village as requested in Ext.P2, and for further direction to the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition to consider Ext.P2 and pass orders in the light of Ext.P1 judgment of the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirapally. The writ petition was disposed of as per the judgment dated 29.09.2008, directing the 2^nd respondent to proceed to take action on Ext.P2 at the earliest and at any rate within a period of two months.

¶31

According to the petitioner, the judgment was produced before the 2^nd respondent on 10.11.2008. However, the directions contained in the judgment are not complied with by the respondent. It is also submitted that, during the pendency of this contempt case, Annexure-IV order was passed effecting mutation of the property, and therefore, the

¶32

Cont. Case (C) No.667 of 2009 2

¶33

contempt of court case was closed as per Annexure-V judgment. According to the petitioner, thereafter, AnnexureIX order is passed by the statutory authority cancelling the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner, which necessitated the petitioner to re-open the contempt proceedings, since according to the petitioner, respondent has committed serious contempt in view of the review of the order

¶34

passed as per Annexure-IV. Therefore, petitioner seeks appropriate action against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972.

¶35

During the pendency of this contempt case, various developments have taken place. Against Annexure-I judgment, the State Government preferred appeal before the appellate court, however, Ext.P1 judgment is affirmed. Even though R.S.A No.1392 of 2013 is preferred by the State Government against the judgment and decree of the appellate court, the same is also dismissed as per the judgment dated 28.08.2014. Apparently, it is obvious that, Annexure-IX order was passed by the statutory authority presumably thinking that the appeal filed by the State Government before the appellate authority may attain fruitful results in favour of the

¶36

Cont. Case (C) No.667 of 2009 3

¶37

Government.

¶38

The fact discussions made above would make it clear that the State Government could not succeed in the appeal and the second appeal. So also, the contempt of court case is pending before this Court from the year 2009 onwards and many other developments with respect to respondent and other statutory authority would have also taken place, which

¶39

disables this Court to proceed against the respondent specifically and particularly.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader and perusing the documents on record, I am of the considered opinion that, this contempt of court case can be closed, however, observing that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking mutation, granted by Annexure-IV and cancelled by Annexure-IX will be re-considered by the present statutory authority in accordance with law, taking into account Ext.P1 judgment and subsequent judgments passed by the appellate court as well as this Court in the aforesaid R.S.A. A finality shall be attained to the issue at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Cont. Case (C) No.667 of 2009 4

¶42

Needless to say, all consequential actions in accordance with law shall follow including assignment of Thandaper account number and receipt of tax, if the petitioner is entitled to

¶43

succeed as per the observations contained above.

¶44

The contempt of court case is closed accordingly.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶47

St/06.02.2018

A.C.Ashok Kumar v. P.K.Santhoshakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.C.Ashok Kumar v. P.K.Santhoshakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marikutty Samuel Vs a. Hemachandran

Rojan J.Manjerikalam Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sainudeen a a Vs the State of Kerala

V. Rajesh Kumar Vs Sri.a.Hemachandran

Neena Kora Jacob Vs the District Disaster Management Authority

Beena Balachandran Vs Haripad Municipality