IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 496 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1361/2005 Dated 31/10/2007 .................... PETITIONER -------------- GOPALAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.NANIKUTTIYAMMA, POTTANAD HOUSE THYKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, OLLUR, THRISUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT NO.2 ---------------------------- VARGHESE B.V., AGED NOT KNOWN S/O.NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- C.O.CNO. 496 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May , 2008 JUDGMENT The second respondent has filed a statement annexing Annexure A1 copy of the order dated 26.3.2008 issued in compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 31.10.2007. Under that judgment directions had been issued to the second respondent to finalise the proceedings for assignment of land in favour of respondents 7 to 15 and also to take up eviction proceedings, if any initiated against respondents 7 to 15 under Rule 11 of the Land Conservancy Rules upon finalisation of the land assignment proceedings. Under Annexure A1 the land assignment proceedings have been finalized declining assignment on the reason that the land in question is vested with the Thrissur Corporation and that the Land Assignment Tahsildar does not have the power to assign such lands. It is also observed in Annexure A1 that the Government alone has the power to order assignment. In view of Annexure A1, it will not be proper to initiate any action against any of the respondents for contempt. Annexure A1 will certainly reveal that the first part of the C.O.C. No.496/2008 2 direction in my judgment has been complied with by the respondent on 26.3.2008. As for the remaining part i.e. finalisation of the proceedings if any initiated against respondents 7 to 15 under Rule 11 of the Land Conservancy Rules this court had set a time frame of one month. Though that time frame is over, on the circumstance of this case, I am inclined to extend that time frame by two more months from today. The Contempt of Court Case is accordingly disposed of directing the concerned respondents to comply with the second part of the directions in Annexure A Judgment within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment and giving permission to the petitioner to move this court under this jurisdiction if necessary after the expiry of the extended time. The petitioner is also directed to send a copy of Annexure A1 order as well as copy of this judgment by registered post with acknowledgment due to atleast one amongst respondents 7 to 15. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk C.O.C. No.496/2008 3