IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1399 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.1491/2004 Dated 01/02/2005 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIVANANDAN, AGED 60,S/O,KUNJUPILLAI KARIKUL KOTTARAM, PASUMALAI, VANDIPERIYAR P.O. PEERUMEDU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHAJI,S/O. NOT KNOWN, TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- Cont.Case (C) NO. 1399 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT WPC was disposed of on 4.12.2003 directing the Tahsildar to identify the petitioner's property and thereafter for the police to consider petitioner's claim for police protection. Petitioner filed a Contempt Application in 2004 which was disposed of on 1.2.2005 granting further three months' time to the Tahsildar to comply with the judgment. However, this present Contempt Application is filed alleging non-compliance of judgment. It is seen that Tahsildar has issued proceedings on 1.6.2005 holding that property held by the petitioner cannot be identified with reference to different survey numbers and village records. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in enjoyment of the property for several years and civil court has passed a decree for injunction against the previous neighbouring owner. I do not find any prima facie case for contempt in the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar on 2.6.2005 expressing his 2 inability to demarcate the property. However, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar seeking remedy elsewhere. Contempt Case is accordingly closed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3