IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 141 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1267/2006 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SOMAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 63, DARAPPAYIL VEEDU, TIRUPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SANJAY KAUL.I.A.S., S/O.M.G.KAUL, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SMT.ATHINAL (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN) TAHASILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont Case (C) No. 141 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner complains of non-compliance with the directions in Annexure 1 judgment, which reads thus: “The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to allot the land immediately with a time frame comprised in Sy. Nos. 11/39 and 11/30 in Vizhinjam Village, Trivandrum Taluk as stated in Ext. P5.” It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent that the petitioner's claim will be considered in top priority, when excess land to the landless people is given in Neyyattinkara Taluk. The writ petition is disposed of making it clear that without considering the case of the petitioner nobody shall be granted any excess land in Neyyattinkara Taluk and with a further direction to take a decision in the case of the petitioner in view of his advanced age within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.” Admittedly, Annexure 4 order has been passed pursuant thereto. Of course, the same is not in favour of the petitioner. But there is no direction in Annexure 1 judgment in favour of the petitioner. That being so, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Annexure 4 order appropriately. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.