M.V.JOSEPH Vs. P. JOY OMMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case has been filed alleging improper compliance of the directions issued by this Court as per judgment dated 15/07/2013 in WPC No.13065/2009. The directions issued by this Court as narrated in paragraph 23 (iii) of the judgment reads as under: 23. (i) xxxx (ii) xxxx (iii) W.P.C.No.13065 of 2009 is allowed as under; (a) The respondents are directed to surrender possession of 15 cents of land in Sy.No.67/1/2 in favour of the petitioner after identifying the property with the help of the Taluk Surveyor on the basis of the documents produced as Ext.R3(a), (b) and (c). This may be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(2.) The complaint of the petitioner is that though the respondents were directed to surrender possession of 15 cents of land in Sy.No.67/1/2 in favour of the petitioner after identifying the property with the help of Taulk Surveyor on the basis of documents produced as Exts.R3(a), (b) and (c), The Taluk Surveyor has taken a method of measurement by which the building of the petitioner is not surrendered. According to the petitioner, the property having an extent of 15 cents and residential building bearing door No.KP 5/284 was mortgaged in favour of the Kerala Financial Corporation. Therefore, they were bound to surrender that portion of property having an extent of 15 cents including the residential building. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when only certain item of land is demarcated and surrendered back indicates wilful contempt.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent inter alia contending that they have not committed any contempt. Immediately on receiving information from the Counsel for KFC regarding dismissal of Special Leave Petition filed by them, steps were taken to comply with the direction by issuing Annexures R1(a), R1(b) and R1(c) letters addressed to the District Collector and Tahsildar to survey the property having an extent of 15 cents as per the sale deeds aforementioned. On 18/09/2014, petitioner filed an application seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to restore possession of the building to the petitioner. It is inter alia stated that petitioner was served with Annexure 1 letter dated 28/08/2014 offering restoration of possession of 6.05 ares (15 cents) and he was called upon to take possession. Petitioner contended that the building was not situated in the said 15 cents.