Quashed

Mary Joseph v. Sheeba George IAS

Kerala HC24 Nov 2022Con.Case(C)/1885/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case alleging violation of prior directions, the Court found the challenged order premature as proceedings on the Patta's genuineness were incomplete. The Court allowed the impugned order to be withdrawn, directed the District Collector to complete proceedings afresh, and granted the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and produce documents within two months.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A2 order withdrawn; District Collector directed to complete proceedings as ordered in prior judgment after affording petitioner fresh opportunity to be heard and produce documents within two

Mary Joseph Vs Sheeba George IAS — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1885 OF 2022

¶6

[IN THE MATTER OF NON COMPLIANCE OF JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2021 IN WP(C) 22271/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA]

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

MRS.MARY JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH, AGED 71 YEARS, NADUVILEKKUTTU HOUSE, ANAVIRATTY.P.O, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, KAMPILINE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 561.

¶9

BY ADVS.P.M.JOSHI SIJI K.PAUL BONNY BABY

¶10

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

SHEEBA GEORGE IAS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI, PAINAVU, PIN 685 001.

¶12

SRI.JAFFERKHAN, SR.GP

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1885 OF 2022

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This contempt case has been filed by the

¶18

petitioner alleging that Annexure A2 order has been issued by the District Collector in flagrant violation of the directions of this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22271/2020.

¶19

about the rival contentions of the parties; but suffice to say that Annexure A2 proceeds on the assumption that the “Patta” issued to the petitioner is fraudulent, but without completing the proceedings to evaluate its genuineness.

¶20

This is evident from the fact that the

¶21

respondent has filed an affidavit before this Court, wherein, she says that Tahsildar has been authorized to complete proceedings against the petitioner with respect to the “ genuineness of the Patta ” (sic).

¶22

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1885 OF 2022

¶23

-3-

¶24

I, therefore, cannot fathom how Annexure A2 could have been issued, when such processes had not yet been completed; or how the District Collector says that the land covered by the “Patta” was assigned to somebody else as “Kuthakapattam”. It is needless to say that these conclusions are premature, because it could have been done only after the “Patta” was found to be not genuine, as alleged.

¶25

Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, Sri.Jaffer Khan – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that if this Court is not inclined to accept Annexure A2, same will be withdrawn and that District Collector will proceed to dispose of the matter in terms of the directions in the judgment in question afresh. He, however, added that, since the District Collector has already heard the petitioner, she may be permitted to complete the

¶26

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1885 OF 2022

¶27

-4-

¶28

proceedings, without such opportunity being granted again.

¶29

counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, since this Court is now allowing the District Collector to continue proceedings as per the directions in the judgment, another opportunity

¶30

may be given to his client to be heard and

¶31

produce relevant documents. I deem it appropriate to accede to this request.

¶32

In such circumstances, I close this contempt

¶33

case, recording that Annexure A2 stands withdrawn; consequently, directing the District Collector to complete proceedings as ordered in

¶34

the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard afresh - and also to produce additional documents, if any - as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

¶35

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶36

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1885 OF 2022

¶37

-5-

¶38

this judgment.

¶39

I also leave liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again, after the afore exercise is completed, if no further orders are

¶40

issued by the respondent.

¶41

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

akv

¶43

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1885 OF 2022

¶44

-6-

¶45

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1885/2022

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

ANNEXUREA1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO.22271 OF 2020 ANNEXUREA2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 31-7-2022 OF THE RESPONDENT ANNEXUREA3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2009-22 SENT TO RESPONDENTS ANNEXUREA4 THE TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 23-09-22

Mary Joseph v. Sheeba George IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Joseph v. Sheeba George IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Infopark (India) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Jayaram.B. Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Consumer Federation

Deepumon Mathew Varghese, Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Sudha Jacob Koshy Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumari Vs Malappuram Service Co-Operative Bank

Reena Vs V.R. Premkumar