AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Thomas P. Joseph
As instructed by the learned Government Pleader, respondent who is now the Land Tribunal at Thripunithura has appeared in person. According to the petitioner who is the legal representative of the kudikidappukaran, the respondent has committed contempt by not complying with the directions in Annexures-A3, A6 and A10, judgments.
There was an application for purchase of kudikidappu preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The landlord filed application for shifting the kudikidappu. By Annexure-A2, order dated 09.05.2005 the application for shifting was dismissed as the site offered by the landlord came within the coastal regulation zone. That order was challenged in this Court in W.P.(C) No.20247 of 2005. This Court, by Annexure-A3, judgment dated 02.07.2007 set aside Annexure-A2, order giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. There was a direction to the Land Tribunal, Thripunithura (for short, "the Tribunal") to decide the matter after hearing both sides within two months of the date of first appearance of the parties. Parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.07.2007.
Alleging that the said direction was not complied, wife of the kudikidappukaran (who, by that time, expired) filed Cont. Case (C) No.1872 of 2008 which this Court disposed of by Annexure-A6, judgment dated 15.01.2009. There, the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter on or before 31.03.2009.
The son of the kudikidappukaran (petitioner) again came to this Court complaining of contempt of earlier directions of this Court by filing Cont. Case (C) No.1153 of 2011. That petition was disposed of by Annexure-A10, judgment dated 04.11.2011. This Court reminded the Tribunal of the earlier directions (referred above) and directed the Tribunal to expedite the proceedings and dispose of O.A.No.99 of 1998 (application for shifting of the kudikidappu).
In this petition, grievance is that the directions contained in Annexures-A3, A6 and A10 are not complied with by the Tribunal which is now manned by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no effective steps were taken to dispose of O.A.No.99 of 1998 though it is pending for the last so many years and the kudikidappukaran and his wife who later appeared in the case have expired.
The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the respondent assumed charge as the Tribunal on 01.02.2012 and has explained the proceedings taken before and thereafter. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that on 12.09.2011 the Revenue Inspector was directed to report whether the alternate site suggested by the landlord could be made use of for construction of the homestead. Question arose whether having regard to the lie of the property, permission is to be obtained from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (for short, "the KCZMA"). The Tribunal addressed letters to the Chairman of the KCZMA on 03.11.2011, 26.12.2011, 03.01.2012 and 08.03.2012. After the respondent assumed charge of the Tribunal, there was a further letter addressed to the Chairman of the KCZMA on 17.07.2012. In the meantime, a report was received from the KCZMA on 30.03.2012 that physical verification of the site is necessary.
After the respondent assumed charge on 01.02.2012 there was some attempt to settle the matter on conciliation. On 23.02.2012 a conciliation was suggested and agreed by the parties. The case was posted on 21.04.2012 for conciliation. The landlord suggested two sites (plots A and B) for shifting of the kudikidappu. The learned counsel on both sides inspected the plots. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a statement on 13.05.2012 that plot B is not suitable. The case was posted on 16.07.2012. The learned counsel and parties were present that day before the Tribunal. A report was sought for from the Chairman of the KCZMA whether plot A could be made use of for construction of the homestead without violating the regulations.
The learned Government Pleader submits that a report in that regard is not yet received (the learned counsel for the petitioner has a case that plot A is the existing kudikidappu but the learned Government Pleader, after getting instruction from the respondent states that plot A is one of the alternative sites offered by the landlord).
On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am not inclined to think that there was any wilful laches or delay on the part of the Tribunal and in particular, the respondent who assumed charge only on 01.02.2012 in complying with the directions contained in Annexures-A3, A6 and A10, judgments.
But, the proceeding is to be disposed of as early as possible in the way permitted by law either by conciliation or by adjudication. The respondent shall take every effort to get a report if needed from the Chairman of the KCZMA for the purpose.
In view of the proceedings required to be taken, I am not prescribing any time limit for disposal of the application. But, the respondent shall bear in mind the directions already issued in Annexures-A3, A6 and A10, judgments, the delay that has already occurred, grievance of the petitioner and make all earnest efforts to dispose of the application as early as possible and as provided under the law without giving room for the petitioner to again approach this Court with a petition for contempt proceeding.
With the above direction, this petition is disposed of.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.