IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 839 of 2009(S) -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.NO.1876/2001 DATED 25/09/2004. .................... PETITIONER/ PEITIONER IN I.A: --------------------------------------------- POULOSE, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, PLAKATTU MANIYANTHATTU HOUSE, KUZHIKADU KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.G.RAJAGOPAL, MR.THOMAS M.JACOB. RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN I.A: ---------------------------------------------------------- DR.K.BEENA, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. BY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL).NO.839 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate proceedings against the respondent for contempt and punish the respondent in accordance with law. Respondent, the District Collector, Ernakulam, is sought to be proceeded personally for alleged contempt of the orders of this Court. Petitioner is the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1876 of 2001. Orders passed in the revision by this Court and subsequent orders thereof have not been complied by the respondent, is the case of the petitioner alleging that the respondent has to be proceeded for contempt and be punished. Petitioner has filed a suit as O.S.No.170 of 1990 for declaration of his title over the property scheduled and for consequential injunction against eviction. It seems, a decree was passed in the suit on compromise by which the COC.839/09 2 1st defendant State has to refer the dispute regarding the apportionment of the compensation amount for the acquired property scheduled in the plaint to the competent court. Later, petitioner moved an execution petition, which was dismissed holding that there was no executable decree. Order passed by the execution court dated 6.4.2001 in E.P.No.140 of 1996 in O.S.No.172 of 1990 was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision as C.R.P.No.1876 of 2001 before this Court. The revision was disposed by order dated 17.6.2003 taking note of the objections raised by the State that the schedule property is a puramboke land vested with the Government. Annexure A1 is the copy of that order. This court expressed the view that unless the title is declared in favour of the revision petitioner, the question of apportionment of compensation does not arise. It was further held that it is open to the State to raise the contention of jurisdiction before the Sub Court, Parur, where the reference had been made. A review petition was filed against that order passed in the C.R.P. by the petitioner, and it was disposed by Annexure A2 order dated 7th June, 2004. The review petition COC.839/09 3 was disposed directing the 1st respondent District Collector to refer the question of title to the Sub Court, Parur within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A further review was filed by the petitioner against the above order, and it was disposed by Annexure A3 order dated 25.9.2004, by which, the District Collector was permitted to refer the question of entitlement of compensation for taking possession of the suit property and question of title to the Sub Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Petitioner later proceed for contempt against the then Collector as Contempt Case.No.91 of 2006 that the order passed by the court has not been complied with, and it was disposed by judgment dated 5th April, 2006 taking note of the submissions of the Govt.Pleader that the matter has already been referred to the Principal Sessions Court, North Parur. Still not satisfied, petitioner moved another petition for contempt as Contempt Case.No.605 of 2007, which was disposed by order dated 11th January, 2008, by which, the District Collector was directed to refer the question of entitlement of compensation as well to the Sub Court along COC.839/09 4 with the question of title which had already been referred. Petitioner was also accorded permission to move the court for further orders in case of noncompliance. Now the present petition is filed alleging that even after such directions, the question relating to compensation has not been referred to the Sub court for adjudication. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Govt. Pleader. I find no merit in the petition. It is true that some orders have been passed by this Court directing for reference of the question of enhancement of compensation before the Sub court presumably on the basis that there was a decree in a civil suit compelling such reference. There is no decree compelling such reference is evident from the facts and circumstances presented. Further more, even after the orders passed on the review petitions filed one after the another, this Court has only permitted the District Collector to make a reference. Permission given to an authority to make a reference cannot be concluded as an order or direction, and such a reference need be made only if it is sanctioned by law. COC.839/09 5 In a previous judgment by this Court under Annexure A5, the permission had been construed as an order, is canvassed by the counsel to contend that the District Collector is bound to make a reference to the Sub court the question of enhanced compensation also for consideration with the question of title. Where there is no decree or any order in the revision for making such a reference, the direction given in the contempt proceedings assuming that there was such an order cannot confer any better right on the petitioner. Proceedings for contempt initiated by the petitioner against the respondent are found devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp