2025:KER:28047 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CON.CASE(C) NO. 413 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: N.P. BEEPATHU,AGED 73 YEARS, W/O. KB MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KALATHIL HOUSE, NETTOOR DESOM, NETTOR P.O, MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682304 BY ADV SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENT/S: 1 ABBAS AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER THE PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), COLLECTRATE, KAKKANAD CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030 2 MEERA AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI FORT KOCHI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001 BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA Smt.Amminikutty.K THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con Case (c) No.413 of 2025 2 2025:KER:28047 JUDGMENT This contempt of court case is submitted by the petitioner, alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court. As per the judgment, this Court directed the respondent to pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner as per Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order as directed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 34237 of 2024 . Now, an order has been passed by the respondent, wherein, it was found that the application of the petitioner was not the one submitted under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. According to the petitioner, the same amount to Contempt of this court. 2. As far as the judgment in respect of this Contempt of Court Case is filed is concerned, the same was disposed of taking note of Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 34237 of 2024 wherein, a direction was issued to the respondent herein to consider the application of the petitioner. However, there was no reference to Clause 6 of the KLU Order, in the said judgment. Therefore, there Con Case (c) No.413 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28047 was no conclusion by this court that the application was the one filed under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Therefore, I am of the view that, as an order has been passed, in the light of the direction issued by this Court, the question of sustainability of the order is a matter which has to be agitated in a separate writ petition and I do not think that the same would fall within the scope of a Contempt of Court Case. In such circumstances, this Contempt of Court Case is closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke his remedies. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE rpk Con Case (c) No.413 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28047 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 413/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.34237/2024 DATED 17.12.2024 Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE JUDGMENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2025