A court order must be complied with within the stipulated time period, and any delay in compliance may amount to contempt of court.

Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - NON-COMPLIANCE OF COURT ORDER - SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES RULES, 1964 - RULE 43 - APPLICATION FOR POINTING OUT BOUNDARIES - DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF RE-FIXING SKETCH - UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY TENDERED - CONTEMPT CASE CLOSED WITH DEPRECATION
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a contempt of court case alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in a judgment dated 13.01.2021, whereby the respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application made in Form No.10, invoking the provisions under Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964, for pointing out the boundaries of his registered land, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent had delayed the issuance of the re-fixing sketch to the petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 62 years, and that the respondent had tendered an unconditional apology.
Issues: Whether the respondent had complied with the directions contained in the judgment dated 13.01.2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent had not complied with the directions contained in the judgment dated 13.01.2021, as the re-fixing sketch was not issued to the petitioner within the stipulated time period.
Final Decision: The contempt case was closed after deprecating in the strongest terms the conduct of the respondent in delaying the issuance of the re-fixing sketch to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this contempt of court case alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in Annexure-I judgment dated 13.01.2021 in W.P.(C)No.128 of 2021, whereby the 4th respondent therein was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.

2. On 30.06.2021 when this matter came up for admission, the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the contempt case to the learned Government Pleader, within two days.

3. On 07.07.2021 when this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader submitted that steps are being taken to comply with the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment and he sought adjournment by one week.

4. On 24.11.2021, when this matter was taken up for consideration, this Court passed the following order:

“........... Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the submission made by the learned Government Pleader is that, the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment has already been complied with by the respondent.

When the application made by the petitioner is one filed in Form No.10, invoking the provisions under Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964, for pointing out the boundaries of his registered land, pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment, the respondent ought to have pointed out the boundaries of that land, which is his statutory duty. The respondent has sworn to before this Court, wherein it is stated that the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment has already been complied with. The respondent has not even instructed the learned Government Pleader properly, who is unable to assist this Court properly.

In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to personally present before this Court on

15.12.2021 at 4.00 p.m., along with necessary files.”

5. Pursuant to that order the respondent, who is presently working as Tahsildar (Land Records), Kottarakkara Taluk, appeared in person. This Court passed order dated

15.12.2021 which reads thus:

“.....The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 25.11.2021 immediately after the order of this Court ordering personal appearance, the respondent has sent by registered post the sketch of the property.

The respondent shall file an affidavit explaining the delay in complying with the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 13.01.2021 in letter and spirit.

The affidavit shall be placed on record within three weeks.

List on 12.01.2022.

Personal appearance of the respondent is dispensed with for the time being.”

6. Today when this case is taken up for consideration, the respondent has filed an additional affidavit dated 04.01.2022.

Paragraphs 5 to 9 of that affidavit read thus:

“5. It is submitted that the boundary of the land bordering with the State Highway -1 (MC Road) and other sides has been pointed out to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the portion of the land in Survey No.439/5-2 on the western boundary for which the petitioner is paying land tax was in the possession of the neighboring land owner. The western boundary is separated with well defined boundaries. Since the petitioner objected to the fixing of boundaries on the western side, survey and demarcation could not be completed on 09.07.2021.

6. It is submitted that the Taluk Surveyor and Head Surveyor again inspected the site on 10.08.2021 in the presence of the petitioner and all the boundaries of the land was demarcated and pointed out to the petitioner. It is submitted that an extent of 0.55 Ares forms part of the 01.28 Ares in Resurvey No.439/5, acquired for the widening of the State High Way- l(MC Road). Another extent of 0.10 Ares on the western side is possessed by the neighboring land owner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document