Disposed

Sreelatha v. C.a.Latha

Kerala HC19 Mar 2018Con.Case(C)/770/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Hon'ble Court is the seventh contempt filing alleging non-compliance with interim orders. It deemed it unfit to determine the validity of the administrative proceedings in this separate contempt case, instead accepting the matter will be resolved in the pending writ petition. The court closed the contempt case with liberty to argue in the main petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; petitioner allowed liberty to raise issues in the main writ petition later.

Sreelatha Vs C.a.Latha — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 770 of 2017

¶6

---------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 15848/2017 DATED 12-05-2017 ---------------PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.15848/2017:

¶7

SREELATHA, D/O.(THE LATE) NALINIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBU VEEDU, VAZHAPPALLY WEST, THURUTHY P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 3,4 & 6 IN W.P.(C) NO.15848/2017: -----------------------------------------------------------

¶10

1. C.A.LATHA,I.A.S, (AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶11

2. K.RAMDAS, (AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION,KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶12

3. M.A.ASHA, (AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCHARGE, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, SURVEY OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S.DILIP

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

Con.Case(C).No. 770 of 2017

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/1/2017 IN WPC NO 15848/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶20

ANNEXURE	B TRUE COPIES OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FOR AND THE INFORMATION DTD
	12.3.2018 RECEIVED FROM VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE	C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C9-1696/2018 DATED 12/3/2018 ISSUED FROM VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶21

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶22

R3(A)	COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT SKETCH PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OLD SY.NO 38/15.
R3(B)	COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT SKETCH(CO-RELATED SKETCH) IN RESPECT OF OLD SY.NO.AND THE RE-SY.NO.
R3(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES.
R3(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R3(E).
R3(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER BEFORE COMMENCING THE MEASUREMENT.
R3(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED SKETCH SHOWING THE RESURVEY AND OLD SURVEY NUMBER PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION PURSUANT TO THE MEASUREMENT HELD ON 20.12.2017.
R3(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE AN ENLARGED VERSION OF THE SKETCH PREPARED.
	/TRUE COPY/
K.V. 24.03.2018	P.S.TO JUDGE

¶23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶24

----------------------------------------------Cont. Case (C) No. 770 of 2017

¶25

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2018

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

This Contempt of Court Case has been filed alleging that the interim order of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 15848 of 2017 has not been complied. In the order in question, I had directed the respondents herein to measure out the entire land under the possession of respondents 7 to 11, as also the land owned by late Sri. Issac, in accordance with Ext. P13 litho-plan in the presence of the petitioner.

¶28

When this Contempt Case was brought to the notice of this Court initially, I passed an interim order dated 14.11.2017 again directing the respondents to conduct a fresh measurement of the properties, in the presence of the petitioner, based on proper documents.

¶29

Cont. Case (C) No. 770 of 2017

¶30

-2-

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Ajith Krishnan

¶32

today tells me that even after the second exercise, as afore directed, the Authorities have only measured the property in a perfunctory manner and that the proceedings now concluded by them are still not in confirmity with the interim order. He says that a reply affidavit dated 17.03.2018 has been filed wherein the following averments are made;

¶33

“4. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent prepared the sketch without recording the Village boundaries on Northern side i.e., Vazhappally, Kurichi Village and the possession in the Theodilite stones. Measurement was done wrongly not from boundary of the Village but from the compound wall of the properties in possession of the party respondent. If the measurement is taken from the boundary of the Village, the puramboke land can be easily identified. As a result, 3^rd respondent now regularized the illegal encroachment portion of land which is in the possession of the party respondents. As per the prior title deed, the party respondent can claim ownership and possession to the extent of 90 cents

¶34

Cont. Case (C) No. 770 of 2017

¶35

including the Roads and pathways on the three side of the property. But they are now illegally holding possession of 1.32 cents property. The excess property which is in possession of the party respondents comes to 42 cents.

¶36

6. The 3^rd respondent deliberately omitted to include the total encroached portion of land in the sketch produced before this Hon'ble Court. Only a namesake measurement was done to create a smokes screen. Thus, 3^rd respondent has no bonafides in complying the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly proceed with the contempt matter and punish the respondents in accordance with law.”

¶37

Even though I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel as above, I am of the view that since the writ petition is pending and since as per the above order dated 14.11.2017 of this Court certain proceedings have been completed in a particular manner, it would not be justified for this Court to sit in judgment over the validity of the said proceedings and that it will be better to leave the petitioner

¶38

Cont. Case (C) No. 770 of 2017

¶39

-4-

¶40

to invoke remedies against such orders or such proceedings,

¶41

in terms of law, if required, in the pending writ petition itself. Reserving such liberty, I deem it appropriate to close this Contempt of Court Case.

¶42

I clarify that since I have not considered any of the contentions of the petitioner as stated by him in the reply affidavit dated 17.03.2018, he would be at liberty to raise all such issues before the court when the writ petition itself is considered.

¶43

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶44

EB/23.03.2018

Sreelatha v. C.a.Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreelatha v. C.a.Latha

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

Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

K.Cherian Kurian Vs P.K.Radhakrishnan

Thomas Antony Vs State Ofkerala

K.J. Alaxender Vs R. Girija

K.M.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs M/S.Little Flower Tex

Lennyamma Vs Union of India