K.Ramakrishnan Nair v. Sasikumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/16TH SRAVANA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 635 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.38139/2007-M, DATED 14-02-2014 ------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C) :

-------------------------------------------- K.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PADMA BHAVAN, VENCHEMPU MURIYIL, KARAVALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C) : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SASIKUMAR, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) TAHASILDHAR, TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM-689 695. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

Con.Case(C).No. 635 of 2015 (S) ----------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE A1:

A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.38139/2007-M ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE R1(A):

A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 11.06.2014 //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

................................................. Cont. Case (C) No. 635 of 2015 ............................................... Dated this the 7th day of August, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging wilful contempt of the direction issued by this Court as per judgment dated 14.02.2014.

2.In the aforesaid judgment, 2nd respondent was directed to pass necessary orders in Ext.P4 application in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The direction was to complete the process within a period of three months. 3.In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that since the applicant was not eligible for getting the land assigned under the concession rate, she filed a statement expressing her willingness to get the land assigned on market rate as per the statement dated 11.06.2014 produced as Annexure R1(a). Further it is stated that as per Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, Government has to constitute in each Taluk a committee called Taluk Land Assignment Committee for assignment of land on registry.

Cont. Case (C) No. 635 of 2015 Pathanapuram Taluk has been bifurcated as Pathanapuram Taluk and Punalur Taluk only on 13.01.2014. The Taluk Land Assignment Committee in respect of Punalur Taluk has not been constituted yet. Hence the respondent has expressed the inability to proceed further in the matter unless the committee has been constituted.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not think that any wilful contempt has arisen in this case. Accordingly, this contempt of court case is closed. sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE AMV/10/08/