IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 24 of 2010(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15919/2008 Dated 30/10/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEWS, S/O.POULOSE, AGED 71 YEARS, THATTAYATH HOUSE, PAYIPRA KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DR.M.BEENA, IAS, W/O.P.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030. 2. MRS.P.V.PAULIN, W/O.BABY, AGED 50 YEARS, THE TAHASILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. GEORGE VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 44 YEARS, TALUK SURVEYOR, MUVATTUPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.NARAYANAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Contempt of Court Case No.24/2010-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.15919/2008 seeking for a direction to fix the boundaries which was disposed of by Annexure-A1 Judgment. This Court recorded the averments in the counter affidavit of the Deputy Tahsildar therein. The main prayer in the writ petition was to fix the boundaries of the petitioner's property and handover the certified copy of the plan based on the measurement made by the Taluk Surveyor. Finally, this Court in paragraph (3) directed that if boundaries have been fixed, then it is necessary to take follow up action by fixing the survey stones as well and this shall be done at the earliest. Alleging dis- obeyance of the above Judgment, this Contempt of Court Case has been filed. 2. An affidavit has been filed by the second respondent herein. It is averred in paragraph (4) that notices have been issued to the petitioner and the adjacent owners after receipt of the Judgment. The Taluk Surveyor, thereafter, has measured the property of the petitioner on the basis of the Revenue Records and the documents produced by the petitioner. On such survey, it is found that a portion of the petitioner's property is now taken for a C.O.C.No.24/2010 -:2:- public road, which is being used by the general public. Therefore, though the property has been measured, no boundary could be fixed. As per the measurement of the petitioner's property and as per the records and documents, boundary can be fixed only in the middle of the public road, which could not be done as the road is being used by the general public. It is further mentioned that though the respondent was ready to fix the boundary of the property of the petitioner on all sides of the property except the portion where the public road is passing through the petitioner has not co-operated for such fixation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that what is required is the furnishing of plan and nothing is disclosed in the counter affidavit regarding the same. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in the light of the measurement taken, a survey plan/sketch cannot be issued since boundary could not be fixed. The respondent will communicate the details of the survey conducted and the measurement taken as also the other details, if any, to the petitioner within two weeks to enable the petitioner to avail of appropriate remedies in the matter. The Contempt of Court Case is disposed of. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms