IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1341 of 2009(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.348/2008 DATED 15.2.2008 .................... PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- V.N.BALAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,VAZHAKANDI HOUSE, THORANI MALA,SULTHAN BATHERY-VIA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. NEELA GANGADHARAN, AGE AND NAME OF THE HUSBAND ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,WORKING AS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. T.RAVINDRAN, AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,WORKING AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,WAYANAD,KALPETTA,WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. P.P.GOPI, AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,(FORMERLY WORKING AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD),NSRI,B27,NEAR SANTHIVILA HOSPITAL, VELLAYANI,NEMAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P.P.MATHAI, AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK,TALUK OFFICE,WAYANAD. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No.1341 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. This contempt case under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed alleging that the direction contained in the judgment in W.A.No.348 of 2008 is being violated by the respondents. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: “(7). At this stage, the only order that we can pass is to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take effective steps to re-possess the land from the 4th respondent, if he is in illegal possession and to distribute the same to the Adivasi people at the earliest.” 2. Petitioner does not have a case that the land in question has been recovered from the possession of respondent No.4 in the Writ Appeal. Admittedly, the civil suit in respect of the disputed land is still pending consideration before the competent civil court. Unless and until the said proceedings are not over, or the Cont. Case (C) No.1341 of 2009 - 2 - land is repossessed by the Government, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the direction issued by this Court in the impugned judgment. The contempt case is totally misconceived. Therefore, it is closed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns