SHAHIM K.B. vs NIZARUDHEEN M

This contempt of court case has been filed alleging that the judgment of this Court, dated 03.03.2017, in W.P.(C) No.32361 of 2015 has not

been complied with. In the judgment in question, noticing a controversy as to the real extent of land owned by the writ petitioner, I had directed the

Secretary of the Corporation of Thrissur to cause physical measurement of his property by the Taluk Surveyor in the presence of the petitioner and

the fourth respondent, who is the contesting party. The petitioner says that no such measurement has been done and has thus filed this case.

I have heard Sri.S.Sujin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent asserts vehemently that the allegations in the contempt case are not true and he says

that the accusation of the petitioner, that the measurement of the property has not been done, is incorrect. According to him, the measurement was

done immediately after the judgment of this Court was pronounced and that an order was issued by the second respondent in the writ petition on

10.10.2017 finding that the petitioner is in possession of more than 3.31 cents of land. The learned standing counsel adds that a subsequent order

was issued, based on such measurement, to demolish the petitioner''s construction, which has been challenged by him before the Tribunal for Local

Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned standing counsel says that there is, therefore, nothing left in this contempt case to be

considered and that the judgment has been complied with.

On a consideration of the submissions as above, it is obvious that the sole contention of the petitioner in this case is that the measurement of his

property has not been done within time. Now that the measurement is concededly over and further proceedings having been initiated by the writ

petitioner before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, I do not think that he would have any further cause to pursue this case on the

allegation that the respondent has committed contempt for the orders of this Court.

In such circumstances, recording the above factual situation, I close this contempt case.

23 August 2017

This case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent herein has violated the directions of this Court in the judgment dated

03.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No.32361 of 2015. In the judgment in question, this Court had directed the respondent as under:

The Secretary will be obligated by the terms of this judgment to issue a proper notice with a minimum of 7 days in advance to the petitioner and

the fourth respondent and cause the inspection and measurement of the property by the Taluk Surveyor as expeditiously as possible. The learned

counsel for the petitioner prays that the verification of the property also be done with the village records, because, what is now shown to be in his

possession is also an extent of Government puramboke, which according to him, required to be executed in such verification. The Secretary will

advert to this contention of the petitioner also and verify the property in the manner that is required in law and adverting to the various documents

that may be produced before it by the parties and with the assistance of such officers or Competent Authorities as would be required.

Sri.Santhosh Poduval, the learned counsel for the respondent says that in terms of the directions of this Court, the Corporation had already

made a requisition to the Taluk Surveyor but that he had not alloted a date for measurement of the property until now. According to Sri.Poduval,

the Taluk Surveyor has now intimated the Corporation that he will inspect the property on 25.08.2017. He says that once such inspection is

concluded, the Corporation will complete the process directed in the judgment, within a further period of two months thereafter.

Taking note of the submissions made by Sri.Poduval, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I deem it appropriate to close this contempt of

court case, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek a rehearing of this case in case the measurement is not initiated by the Taluk Surveyor

on 25.08.2017 or if the respondent herein does not complete the rest of the process within two months thereafter.

This contempt case is thus closed.