IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 485 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24998/2008 .................... PETITIONER : ------------------------ ABBAS K., AGED 42, S/O. KOLARODIL KOYA KURUKKAL, KULARODE HOUSE, VAVULLIAPURAM P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. P.N. PUSHKALA, THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT PERIMKULAM, ALATHUR GRAMAM, ALATHUR. 2. C. DHANESH KUMAR, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI. P.M. POULOSE THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... Cont. Case No. 485 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 23th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with my judgment dated 29.8.2008 in W.P(C)No.24998 of 2008. In that judgment, I directed the Tahsildar, Alathur, to consider the application for correction of revenue records in respect of the petitioner's property within the time stipulated therein. Pursuant thereto, an order has been passed, wherein it has been held that since the property is an ecologically fragile land, which is vested in the Government, the revenue records cannot be corrected. According to the petitioner, this order has been passed in violation of my judgment insofar as this Court had held that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the property belongs to the legal heirs of the applicant in Ext.P1 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the revenue records corrected appropriately. The learned Government Pleader, as in the counter affidavit, submitted that at the time of passing the judgment, the verification process for deciding whether the land is an ecologically fragile land was in progress, which has been Cont. Case No. 485 of 2009 -2- recorded in the judgment also. Subsequently, a notification has been issued declaring that the land in question is an ecologically fragile land. As per the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003, once a notification is issued it relates back to the appointed date. Therefore the revenue records cannot be corrected as requested by the petitioner is the contention raised by the respondents. Although technically the petitioner may be right in contending that the order passed is not strictly in compliance with my judgment, in view of subsequent issuance of notification declaring the land as an ecologically fragile land, I am not inclined to take further proceedings in the contempt case as I am of opinion that there is no wilful disobedience of the judgment. Accordingly, this contempt case is closed. However, I make it clear that this shall not prejudice the right of the petitioner to challenge the notification issued under the Act appropriately. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs