Abbas K. vs P.N. Pushkala on 23 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 485 of 2009(S)


1. ABBAS K., AGED 42,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.N. PUSHKALA, THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. C. DHANESH KUMAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :23/07/2009

 O R D E R
                         S. SIRI JAGAN, J
               ...............................................
                Cont. Case No. 485 of 2009
              .................................................
           Dated this the 23th day of July, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner alleges non-compliance with my judgment

dated 29.8.2008 in W.P(C)No.24998 of 2008. In that judgment, I

directed the Tahsildar, Alathur, to consider the application for

correction of revenue records in respect of the petitioner’s

property within the time stipulated therein. Pursuant thereto, an

order has been passed, wherein it has been held that since the

property is an ecologically fragile land, which is vested in the

Government, the revenue records cannot be corrected.

According to the petitioner, this order has been passed in

violation of my judgment insofar as this Court had held that

there is no dispute regarding the fact that the property belongs

to the legal heirs of the applicant in Ext.P1 and therefore, the

petitioner is entitled to get the revenue records corrected

appropriately. The learned Government Pleader, as in the

counter affidavit, submitted that at the time of passing the

judgment, the verification process for deciding whether the land

is an ecologically fragile land was in progress, which has been

Cont. Case No. 485 of 2009 -2-

recorded in the judgment also. Subsequently, a notification has

been issued declaring that the land in question is an ecologically

fragile land. As per the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Vesting

and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003, once

a notification is issued it relates back to the appointed date.

Therefore the revenue records cannot be corrected as requested

by the petitioner is the contention raised by the respondents.

Although technically the petitioner may be right in contending

that the order passed is not strictly in compliance with my

judgment, in view of subsequent issuance of notification

declaring the land as an ecologically fragile land, I am not

inclined to take further proceedings in the contempt case as I am

of opinion that there is no wilful disobedience of the judgment.

Accordingly, this contempt case is closed. However, I make

it clear that this shall not prejudice the right of the petitioner to

challenge the notification issued under the Act appropriately.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs