IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1542 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.(C).NO.213/2010 DATED 06/10/2010] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.A.JOSE, S/O.LATE ANTONY, AGED 58 YEARS, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KEEKKIRICKATTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR KARA AND POST, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. B.MOHANAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, (WHOSE FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) THE SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. N.S. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, (WHOSE FATHERS NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, (WHOSE FATHERS NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER) THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, S.C, K.S.E.B. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.O.C (C).No.1542 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT This contempt case is filed by the petitioner in O.P(C). No.213 of 2010 disposed of by me as per judgment dated October 6, 2010. That original petition arose from the judgment of learned Sub Judge, Pala in C.M.A.No.3 of 2010 confirming the order passed by learned Munsiff, Kanjirapally on I.A.No.393 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 2009. Dispute concerned title, ownership and possession of a plot of land on which the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, "the Board”) was to construct a substation. Petitioner claimed title and possession of the property and sought for an order of temporary injunction which the courts below refused. On hearing O.P(C).No.213 of 2010 this Court was not inclined to upset finding of the Courts below in that regard but, thought that if ultimately title of petitioner is upheld he shall not be left without any remedy and made certain observations. 2. At the time of hearing the original petition it was submitted by learned counsel for the Board after consulting the second respondent who was present in Court that a 'mahazar' has C.O.C (C).No.1542 of 2010 -: 2 :- been prepared by the Social Forest Department which has been forwarded to the Chief Engineer of the Board. Learned counsel expressed willingness to produce a copy of that mahazar in the trial court so that petitioner could claim value of timber cut and removed from the property if ultimately his title over the property is upheld. Accordingly while disposing of the original petition this Court directed that the Board shall produce a copy of the said 'mahazar' in the trial court within two weeks from the date of disposal of the original petition. 3. Contention of petitioner is that though it was submitted by counsel for the Board taking instruction from the second respondent that a “mahazar” has been prepared by the Social Forest Department, what is produced in the trial court (Annexure-A8) is only a valuation statement which itself does not contain details of certain valuable trees leaving petitioner with no remedy of claiming timber value in case the suit is disposed of in his favour. The Board and the second respondent have committed contempt and an incorrect statement was made in this Court to dissuade this Court from passing an order in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that going through Annexure-A8, statement it is seen that for many items the height of timber is not given. It is also pointed out that this C.O.C (C).No.1542 of 2010 -: 3 :- Court disposed of the original petition on October 6, 2010 while even on that day, some of the timber were available at the spot as seen from the photographs which were taken by the petitioner on the next day (Annexure-A7 series). According to the learned counsel for respondents, no contempt is involved. 4. Presently I am concerned with the question whether there is any contempt committed by the Board or respondent No.2. What learned counsel told me at the hearing of original petition is that a 'mahazar' has been prepared by the Social Forest Department which has been forwarded to the Chief Engineer of the KSEB. True that Annexure-A8 does not say that it is a “mahazar” but, it is valuation statement. Learned counsel for respondents submit that what the Social Forest Department prepared is Annexure-A8. I do not find reason to disbelieve that statement. There is no reason to think that a false statement was made before this Court with the object of dissuading this Court interfering with the decision of the courts below. It is also to be born in mind that it was not the assurance made by counsel for the Board as to production of a copy of 'mahazar' in the trial court which dissuaded this Court to interfere with the decision of the Courts below. I am not inclined to think that any contempt is committed by the Board or the second respondent. C.O.C (C).No.1542 of 2010 -: 4 :- 5. Now the question is whether how petitioner would be able to claim compensation for tress cut and removed if ultimately the case is decided in his favour in the light of want of all details as learned counsel puts it, in Annexure-A8, statement. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to adduce appropriate other evidence regarding the height, girth and other details of the trees involved and claim compensation if his title over the property is upheld and as directed in the judgment dated October 6, 2010. With the above direction this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-