IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1546 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28372/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P (C): --------------------------------------- SANTHAMMA, W/O.VIJAYAN, GOPALAKRISHNA MANDIRAM, BUDHANOOR P.O., ENNAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P (C): ------------------------------------------------ K.G.VENUNATHAN (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- Cont.Case No.1546 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T By judgment dated 14th September, 2010 the writ petition No.28372/2010 was disposed of directing that necessary action shall be taken on Ext.P3 application of the petitioner for survey and demarcation of the property with notice to the parties. It is complaining of non-compliance with the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that in pursuance to the directions in the judgment, notice was issued to the parties to appear on 30.10.2010. It is stated that on that day, in spite of the fact that the petitioner did not appear,the surveyor and chain men went to the spot i According to the learned Government Pleader, because the petitioner did not co- operate with the surveyor, the survey could not be carried out. It is stated that subsequently notice was again issued requiring the parties to appear on 30.12 2010. It is submitted that therefore action on Ext.P3 is being continued and that the same will be completed provided Cont.Case No.1546 of 2010 2 the petitioner co-operates with the authorities. 3. Now that action is being taken as above, I do not think that any disobedience has been committed warranting the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, recording the submission as above directing that the action shall be concluded, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma Cont.Case No.1546 of 2010 3