IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1153 of 2011(S) ---------------------------------------------- [JUDGEMENTS IN W.P.(C).NO.20247/2005 DATED 02/07/2007 AND IN C.C.C. NO.1872/08 DATED 15/01/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT] .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- AUGUSTIN, AGED 67 YEARS, KAITHARAM HOUSE, CHERAI MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ANNAM W/O.KAITHARAN VARGHESE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR, SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- MAGGI CIMMENTHI,AGED 51 YEARS D/O.LATE JOHN CIMMENTHI, PRESIDING OFFICER, LAND TRIBUNAL, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM- 683 14. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CONT. CASE (C).NO.1153/2011-S: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.89/05 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL DT.25.5.2009. ANNEXURE A2:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.99/08 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL DT.09.5.2005. ANNEXURE A3:- CERTIFICED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 20247/05 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT.2.7.2007. ANNEXURE A4:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN RP.713/2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT.4.9.2007. ANNEXURE A5:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.22/08 IN OA.99/98 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL DT.16.3.2009. ANNEXURE A6:- CERTIFICED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CCC.1872/08 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DTD.15.1.2009. ANNEXURE A7:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.13704/09 OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA, DT.30.6.2010. ANNEXURE A8:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN OA.99/98 OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL DT.16.9.2011. ANNEXURE A9:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COSTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DT.18.10.2010. ANNEXURE A10:- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DT.7.3.2005. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Cont. Case (C) No.1153 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Contempt proceeding is sought to be initiated against the respondent, who was the Presiding Officer of the Land Tribunal, Thrippunithura, Ernakulam. Petitioner filed O. A No. 89 of 2005 before the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam, claiming Kudikidappu under Section 80(B) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In the meantime, the land owner filed application for shifting of Kudikidappu. Application for purchase of Kudikidappu was allowed and the one for shifting was dismissed. Order refusing shifting of Kudikidappu was challenged by the landlord in this Court in W.P. (C) No.20247 of 2005. This Court set aside the order and remitted the application to the Land Tribunal, permitting parties to adduce evidence and directing the Land Tribunal to dispose of the matter within two months from the date parties made their first appearance before the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the Land Tribunal did not comply with the said judgment and did not dispose of the matter within the time prescribed. Nor did the landlord adduce any further evidence in the matter within the said C.C.C. No.1153 of 2011 -: 2 :- time. Thereon, petitioner initiated contempt proceeding which resulted in Annexure-6, Judgment (in Cont. Case (C) No. 1872 of 2008). This Court by judgment dated 15.01.2009 directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application for shifting of Kudikidappu on or before 31.03.2009. It was also directed that if it is not so done, the matter will be taken serious note of by this Court. Learned Government Pleader was directed to communicate a copy of the order to the superior Officer having administrative control over the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the above, the Tribunal has not disposed of O.A No.99 of 1998 within the time prescribed by Annexure-A6, judgment. Instead the Tribunal is going on collecting evidence through the Revenue Inspector. That according to the petitioner is contempt of the order/judgment passed by this Court. Hence action is prayed for. 2. Learned Government Pleader after getting instruction, submitted that the respondent who was presiding over the Land Tribunal was transferred as Land Acquisition Officer, GCDA, Kochi on 24.04.2009. But the direction in Annexure-A6, Judgment to dispose of O.A No.99 of 1998 before 31.03.2009 was made when the respondent was functioning as the Tribunal. C.C.C. No.1153 of 2011 -: 3 :- 3. But, I am to consider whether there is contempt committed by the respondent. An inability to complete the proceeding within the time prescribed cannot amount to contempt though in such situation, it was necessary for the respondent to obtain further time from this Court explaining the reason thereof which respondent has not done. It was quite inappropriate, to say the least. It is also seen from Annexure- A1, order in O.A. 89 of 2005 (application filed for purchase of Kudikidappu) that the said application was allowed subject to the decision in O.A No.99 of 1998 (shifting of Kudikidappu). The said order states that the proceeding in O.A No.99 of 1998 was stayed by this court by judgment dated 11.05.2011 in W.P.(C) No.13704 of 2009. True, in Annexure-A6, judgment direction was to dispose of O.A No.99 of 1998 before 31.3.2009. But Annexure-A1 shows and, it is not disputed also that proceeding in O.A No.99 of 1998 was stayed by this court on 15.05.2009. In addition to the above learned Government Pleader submits that while considering O.A No.99 of 1998 it was brought to notice of the Tribunal that the alternative site offered by the landlord for shifting Kudikidappu comes within the coastal regulation zone (CRZ) and construction of homestead in the said premises is not permissible. Thereon, the Tribunal wanted a report from the C.C.C. No.1153 of 2011 -: 4 :- Revenue Inspector. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had adduced sufficient material before the Tribunal to show that the alternative site proposed by the landlord is not within the coastal regulation zone. But I do not find anything improper in the Tribunal getting a report of the Revenue Inspector in that matter since there was objection that the alternative site is within the coastal regulation zone. Therefore I am unable to come to the conclusion that there is contempt committed by the respondent so that action is required. But proceedings cannot go in this way without culmination. By saying so, I bear in mind the direction this Court has issued in various judgments which I have referred to, for early disposal of O.A No.99 of 1998. Having regard to the circumstances stated, the Officer now presiding over the Land Tribunal, Thrippunithura is directed to expedite proceedings and dispose of O.A No.99 of 1998 within a period of five (5) months from this day. He shall bear in mind the earlier directions this Court has issued, which for one reason or other have not been complied. The Land Tribunal shall ensure that the case is disposed of within the above said time. Contempt Court Case is closed as above. C.C.C. No.1153 of 2011 -: 5 :- Registry shall issue a copy of this judgment to the learned Government Pleader free of cost who in turn shall communicate the said order to the Officer in charge of the Land Tribunal, Thrippunithura to ensure compliance with the directions given above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. scl