A contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a judgment directing action on an application for land record correction. The court closed the case without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the order in appropriate proceedings.
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
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.386 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 15065/2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15065/2019(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
RASIYA AGED 49 YEARS W/O.ABDULRAHEEM, PALAKKULANGARA HOUSE, NEELESWARAM.P.O, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ SMT.K.K.NESNA
RESPONDENT:
SMT.DR.PRIYA MOHAN (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) CONVENOR OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KOZHIKODE, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER MUKKAM, MUKKAM.P.O, PIN-673602, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
R1 BY ADV.VIDYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.case(c)386 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this Contempt Case, alleging noncompliance of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 12.06.2019 in W.P.(C)No.15065 of 2019, whereby that writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent herein to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner under sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules, strictly in accordance with law, after obtaining satellite image and report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre and the attested copy of F.M.B sketch from the concerned Village Officer, as per the mandate of the Statute. The petitioner was directed to remit the requisite fee before the appropriate authority for obtaining such materials without any delay. The respondent was directed to pass final orders on Ext.P4 application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. It was also ordered that subject to the outcome of Ext.P4 application for correction of data-bank, it would be open to the petitioner to file a proper application for correction of entry in the village records.
Cont.case(c)386 OF 2020 3
the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings, this contempt case may be closed.
4
Cont.case(c)386 OF 2020
Recording the above submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Contempt Case is closed, without
prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE
yd
5
Cont.case(c)386 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 02.12.2019
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
RASIYA
DR. PRIYA MOHAN
ANIL K.N. NARENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
