Contempt case concerning alleged non-compliance of High Court directions in a land reform matter. Court accepted respondent's submission of compliance and closed the case.
Contempt case closed as respondent was found to have complied with the directed order.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA,
1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1713 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT dated 05.11.2020 IN WP(C) 16942/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
K.B. ABDUL KAREEM AGED 70 YEARS S/O BAPPU, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, PLOT NO 112, GCDA COLONY, CONVENT ROAD-1, THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O.ALUVA-683 108. BY ADVS. E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI M.K.SASEENDRAN (MELEL) NARAYANAN P POTTY P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI A.K.MAYAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT:
DR. A. JAYATHILAK (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
SRI M.H.HANIL KUMAR -SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Cont.case(c)1713 OF 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this Contempt Case, alleging noncompliance of the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment of this Court dated 05.11.2020 in W.P.(C)No.16942 of 2019. Paragraphs 10 to 12 of Annexure-A1 judgment read thus;
“10. The request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation is pending consideration before the additional 7th respondent Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue (B) Department and the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department has already called for a report from the Secretary, Land Board as to how the petitioner claimed the benefit of Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and obtained Ext.P1 title certificate from the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam in respect of the land in possession of the Government. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the additional 7th respondent to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner, after obtaining a report from the Secretary, Land Board, through the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Cont.case(c)1713 OF 2021 3
the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 12. Therefore, the direction contained in this judgment to the additional 7th respondent Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue (B) Department is for taking an appropriate decision on the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on that point.”
admission, along with the memo filed by the learned Special Government Pleader, a decision taken by the Government pursuant to the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment was placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time, since he was yet to be served with the copy of that memo.
Cont.case(c)1713 OF 2021 4
on record.
the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has already complied with the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment.
Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Contempt Case is closed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE
yd
5
Cont.case(c)1713 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| Annexure A1 | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.2020 IN WPC NO 16942/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT |
|---|---|
| Annexure A2 | TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 2.12.2020 ISSUED FOR REGISTRATION AND SENDING ANNEXURE A-1 TO THE RESPONDENT |
| Annexure A3 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.1.2021 IN WA NO 154/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT |
| Annexure A4 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.9.2021 IN CONTEMPT CASE NO 327/2018 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ALONG WITH APPEARANCE NOTICE DATED 7.4.2021 |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
K.B. Abdul Kareem
Dr. A. Jayathilak
Anil K. Narendra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
