SMT. Lalitha v. M/s Mayuram Chitties and General Finance (P) Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/29TH PHALGUNA 1933** **Co.Appeal.No. 3 of 2012 ()** **-------------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO. 640/2008 IN CP.34/2002 AND CP.53/2002 DATED 17-01-2012)** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **SMT.LALITHA, W/O.SATHEESH CHANDRA BOSE, CHERKALA THANDAYANHOUSE, VATANAPPALLY P.O.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:** **---------------------** **M/S.MAYURAM CHITTIES AND GENERAL FINANCE(P) LTD., (IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) REP. BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI. K. MONI** **THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## _**DST**_ **“C.R.”** # **ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. -------------------------------------** **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** **---------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of December, 2015.** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## SHAFFIQUE, J. The contempt case has been filed alleging non compliance of directions issued by this Court as per the judgment dated 24.10.2011 in W.P.(C)No.13149 of 2010. The learned Single judge after hearing the matter and on coming to a conclusion that a prima facie case of wilful disobedience has been made out, referred the matter to this Court for further consideration. 2. Contempt appeal has been filed by the respondent in the contempt case, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, by which, the matter had been referred to this Court. 3. Since the issues raised in the appeal as well as in the referred order are common in nature, both the cases are **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 2 heard and decided together. 4. The allegation raised in the contempt case is that the petitioner claimed assignment of land having an extent of 50 cents in Survey No.385/2C of Kakkanad Village. The application was heard and it was found that the land being a “thodu puramboke”, is not assignable. The petitioner preferred an appeal, in which, the Revenue Divisional Officer upheld the claim of the petitioner and directed the Tahsildar to consider the application afresh and assign the land, leaving a 5 mtr. belt along the thodu for protecting the thodu. The objector filed a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner which came to be dismissed. The objector again filed W.P.(C)No.24064/03 before this Court. The matter was heard by a Division Bench and by judgment dated 29.9.2004, the said writ petition was dismissed, observing that no interference is warranted to the orders passed by the competent authorities. Thereafter, since no action had been taken to assign the land, the petitioner filed **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 3 W.P.(C)No.1003/10, which was disposed of directing the completion of the process within a period of one month. The Tahsildar considered the matter and issued order dated 17.3.2010, observing that the petitioner is not entitled for assignment and accordingly his application had been rejected. It is challenging the said order, W.P.(C) No.13149/10 has been filed. The learned Single Judge observed that the entitlement of the petitioner for assignment of the land has been upheld by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Division Bench of this Court and he is entitled to be assigned the land subject to the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and the Rules. Hence it was observed that the Tahsildar could not have negatived the claim of the petitioner in totality, but the order should have been in compliance with the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Division Bench of this Court and in the light of the provisions in the Kerala Land **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 4 Assignment Act and the Rules. Since such an exercise has not been done, it was observed that Ext.P8 deserves to be set aside and accordingly it was set aside. The Tahsildar was therefore directed to pass fresh orders in the light of the earlier orders passed and duly adverting to the findings in the judgment. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 23.12.2011, which is produced as Annexure A5, again rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is alleged that the aforesaid action of the respondent is contrary to the directions issued by this Court and therefore wilful contempt has been committed and action has to be taken in the matter. 6. While arriving at a finding that the respondent is prima facie liable for wilful contempt, the learned Single Judge has observed that, “Further paragraphs of the judgment show that the qualifying part of the sentence that the assignment **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 5 shall be subject to the provisions of the Land Assignment Act, will only qualify the extent of land and not the entitlement”. In other words, the learned Single Judge has observed that when the petitioner's right to get entitlement has already been established, there could not have been any further consideration of the factual material as on the date of order of assignment and therefore there is prima facie wilful contempt. 7. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent inter alia contending that at the stage when the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order or when the Land Revenue Commissioner passed the order in revision, the question, with regard to entitlement of the petitioner in tune with other provisions of the Act and Rules, was not considered. At the relevant time, what was considered was only, whether the land was assignable, it being a puzha puramboke. Later, when it was found that the land was **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 6 “thodu puramboke”, which could be assigned, the entitlement of the petitioner was required to be considered for grant of assignment under the relevant provisions. It is therefore contended that Exts.P2, P4 and P5 relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the judgment did not consider the question of entitlement of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner was entitled for the land in question, was considered for the first time only when Annexure A4 dated 17.3.2010 (Ext.P8 in the writ petition) was issued. While setting aside the said order rejecting the claim for assignment, the learned Single Judge only observed that the order ought to have been passed in compliance with Exts.P2, P4 and P5 and in the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules. Annexure A5 order was passed taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situations and therefore there is no illegality in the same, much less any wilful contempt had been committed by the respondent. In the affidavit dated 7.9.2012, which was **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 7 ## filed on 11.9.2012, the respondent has stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 as under : “ 5. It is respectfully submitted that the observations at Exts.P2, P4, P5 and even the judgment in WP(C)No.13149/10 to the effect that petitioner is entitled to assignment of land subject to the provisions of Land Assignment Act and Rules was comprehended by me as to mean that the petitioner's claim for assignment of land could be considered in accordance with all the relevant statutory provisions except to the extent that the said application shall not be further rejected on the ground that it is puzha puramboke. This deponent understood consideration of the petitioner's claim to be done in accordance with all the relevant statutory provisions and it was as such that Annexure R1(a) order was passed. There was no willful disobedience or negligence on my part in having issued Annexure R1(a) order, since it is only a consideration of the petitioner's claim in accordance with the relevant Act and Rules. 6. It is respectfully submitted that based on the understanding that the application of the petitioner could be considered taking note of all the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and Rules, I have passed Annexure A1 order totally in consonance with the statutory provisions and also keeping in mind the dictum laid down by this Honourable Court in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government in 2007(3) KLT 702, wherein this Honourable Court has clearly laid down the legal position that while considering application for assignment, it is the Rules as on the date of consideration of the application that has to be looked into, irrespective of the date of application.” **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 8 It is further contended at paragraph 8 that the petitioner and his family members were in possession of separate parcels of land which also makes him disentitled for assignment of Government land. Paragraph 8 reads as under : “8. It is respectfully submitted that while passing Annexure R1(a), this deponent had also taken into account the judgment in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government in 2007(3) KLT 702, wherein this Honourable Court has also held that assignment cannot be granted when the applicant holds more that the extent which could be assigned under the Rules. A perusal of Annexure R1(a) order passed by this deponent in compliance with the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.13149/2010 would clearly reveal that the extent of land over which the petitioner's family has got proprietary right exceeds the limits of extent which could be assigned under the Rules for which reason also the petitioner is not entitled for assignment of any Government Land. By operation of Rule 5(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 read with Explanation 3 of Rule 5, the petitioner cannot claim any extent of land on registry since he holds more than the extent which can be assigned under the Rules. When the petitioner claims assignment of 40 cents of land, it is clear from records that the petitioner himself and his wife, who are living together in the building constructed by him, owns 18 cents of land comprised in Re.Survey No.147/19 in Kakkanad Village. That apart, the petitioner's wife Subaida owns an extent of 4 cents of land and another 46 cents of land comprised in Re-Survey **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 9 No.377/1 and 377/5 respectively in Kakkanad Village. Apart from the above, the petitioner had 13.500 cents of land as per TP No.3363 in Block No.7 of Kakkanad Village, out of which he has sold out 12.230 cents of land retaining back and an extent of 1.270 cents in his name. His family owns such extent of land, the total of which exceeds the maximum area that can be assigned to the family. Apart from the above mentioned properties, 15 cents of land comprised in Re-Survey No.368 part in block 7 of Kakkanad Village is owned by the petitioner's wife Subaida and their daughter Anitha in their joint name. In addition to the above, petitioner's children named Abdu and Sunitha, jointly owns an extent of 10.848 cents of land in ReSurvey No.692/3 in Block No.9 of Kakkanad Village, where a multi storied commercial building has been constructed which is work crores of rupees now. Since the total extent of land possessed under proprietary right by the petitioner who is the head of the family and also other members of the family, both individually and collectively exceeds the maximum area that can be assigned to a family, the petitioner is not entitled for assignment of any Government land. The above reason is also indicated in the order by this deponent, taking into account the relevant statutory provisions.” 8. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit indicating that the contentions urged on behalf of the respondent are absolutely baseless. The petitioner's entitlement for assignment of land was considered and appreciated by the Revenue Divisional Officer which was **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 10 confirmed by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the said orders had been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, there was no reason for further consideration of the entitlement for assignment of land to the petitioner. That apart, when Ext.P8 order (Annexure 4) was set aside by the learned Single Judge, the respondent could not have passed the same order without any change in circumstances. This action of the respondent, according to the petitioner, amounts to wilful contempt. 8. Heard Sri.Poly Mathai, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija Gopal, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 9. The short issue to be considered before proceeding further in this contempt case is, whether the respondent is liable for wilful contempt, for which it is necessary to verify the entire records relating to the above case. According to the respondent, the orders passed in Exts.P2, P4 and P5 which are produced in the contempt case as Annexures A1, **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 11 A2 and A3 would clearly prove his entitlement for the land, which was appreciated by the learned Single Judge by passing the judgment in the writ petition. On a perusal of Ext.P2 dated 26.4.2002, it is apparent that the application was rejected on the ground that the property was “puzha puramboke” and the Revenue Divisional Officer came to a finding that the property is only “thodu puramboke”. Hence he passed the following order : “From the facts of the case it is clear that the land is only thodu puramboke. It has been partially filled by the appellant. It has been in possession of the appellant for several decades. The natural flow of water will not be affected by assigning this land. The Honourable High Court of Kerala has only prohibited assigning of puzha puramboke. In the circumstances the order of the Tahsildar rejecting the application is set aside. He is to consider the application afresh and assign land leaving a 5m.belt along the thodu for protecting the thodu. The balance may be assigned to the appellant after following all required formalities under Law.” It is therefore relevant to note that the Tahasildar was directed to consider the application afresh and assign the land, leaving a 5 mtr. belt along the thodu for protecting the **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 12 thodu, after following all required formalities under law. The above order was upheld by the Land Revenue Commissioner as evident from Annexure A2 (Ext.P4) and the Division Bench of this Court, as per Annexure A3 (Ext.P5). It is thereafter, the claim has been rejected in terms of Annexure A4 dated 17.3.2010 (Ext.P8). In Ext.P8, the Tahasildar considered the following factors : - “1. Whether the land applied for comprised in re-survey No.722 in Block No.9 in Kakkanad Village are still in the possession of the applicant. 2. Whether any agricultural activities have been carried out in the said land. 3. Whether the above land is suitable for cultivation at present. 4. The occupation and annual income of the applicant. 5. Details of landed property owned by the applicant and his family members. 6. Whether the land need be required for future public purpose. 7. Whether the applicant belongs to farmer hood.” 10. The learned Government Pleader relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court to contend that unless there is a wilful disobedience of the directions issued by the 13 ## **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** Court, there is no reason to take proceedings for civil contempt. Reference is made to judgment in **Anil Kumar Shahi(2) and others Vs. Prof.Ram Sevak Yadav and others [(2008)14 Supreme Court Cases 115]** , wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope and effect of civil contempt. It is observed that when the court directs an authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority and mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position, cannot constitute contempt of court. In **Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others [(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 770]** , the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope and effect of wilful disobedience. Paragraphs 17, 23 and 24 in the decision are relevant which read as under : “ **17** . This now leads us to the next question and a more relevant one, as to whether a proceeding for contempt **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 14 initiated against the appellant can be held to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption and inference drawn from facts and circumstances of the instant case. In our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the well-settled legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this Court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, non-compliance with the same cannot be held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious consequence including imposition of punishment. However, when the courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be too speculative based on assumption as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly postulates and emphasises that the ingredient of wilful disobedience must be there before anyone can be hauled up for the charge of contempt of a civil nature. **23.** Besides this, it would also not be correct to overlook or ignore an important statutory ingredient of contempt of a civil nature given out under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that the disobedience to the order alleging **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 15 contempt has to satisfy the test that it is a wilful disobedience to the order. Bearing this important factor in mind, it is relevant to note that a proceeding for civil contempt would not lie if the order alleged to have been disobeyed itself provides scope for reasonable or rational interpretation of an order or circumstance which is the factual position in the instant matter. It would equally not be correct to infer that a party although acting due to misapprehension of the correct legal position and in good faith without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court, should be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt proceeding. **24.** To reinforce the aforesaid legal position further, it would be relevant and appropriate to take into consideration the settled legal position as reflected in the judgment and order delivered in Ahmed Ali v. Supdt., District Jail as also in B.K. Kar v. High Court of Orissa that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and although disobedience might have been established, absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct. Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify for holding one guilty of contempt. It is further relevant to bear in mind the settled law on the law of contempt that casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience under the circumstances which negate any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only and does not render the contemnor liable to punishment and this was the view expressed also in State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari and N. Baksi v. O.K. Ghosh.” **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 16 Another judgment relied upon is that of a Division Bench of this Court in Con.Case(C)No.348/08 ( **Confederation of Consumer Vigilance Centre Vs. B.Jayaram and another)** . That was a case in which this Court considered the question relating to non compliance of directions issued by this Court. Paragraphs 25 and 28 of the said judgment are relevant which read as under : “25. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt which reads as under: **2. Definitions** .—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) ....... (b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; What is wilful disobedience has been considered by the Supreme Court in various judgments and a few of which are discussed herein. In Madras Telephone S.C. & S.T. Social Welfare Association (supra) the Supreme Court held that if bona fide difficulties are felt in implementing the decision of the Court, it would not be proper to proceed against the authorities under contempt. In Sector-6, Bahadurgarh Plot Holders' Association and others v. State of Haryana and **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 17 Another, (supra) it was held that since the authority had made its best efforts to complete all the developmental work, contempt of court is not committed. Similarly in Manish Gupta (supra), it was held that if the inaction of the authority did not reflect an intention of wilful or deliberate disobedience of Court order, it cannot be made as contempt. In Niaz Mohammed (supra) it was held that if the court is satisfied that if the disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the court cannot punish the contemner. It is held as under: **“9.** Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) defines “civil contempt” to mean “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court …”. Where the contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry out an order of a court made in favour of a party, it is a civil contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order or direction has been made can move the court for initiating proceeding for contempt against the alleged contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or direction in question. But such a proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure. The party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. The court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied with and carried out the direction of the court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 18 said that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Before a contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The civil court while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the court, the court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the court may not punish the alleged contemner. ## In **Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1)** the Supreme Court held as under: - **“17.** Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines “civil contempt” and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. “Wilful” means an act or **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 19 omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.” xxxxx **28.** In order to find a person guilty of contempt it has to be found that his act or omission was voluntary and intentional and with the specific intent to fail to do something which the Court requires to be done. Such failure should be with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the Court orders. In other words as held in **Ashok Paper Kamgar Union** (supra) it signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Further the order of the court must be capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort and should not depend upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. Having regard to the evidence adduced, we are of the opinion that the contemner was depending upon the contractor to carry on with the work. The contractor could not do the work due to various circumstances mentioned above. It **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 20 cannot therefore be said that the contemner has committed any wilful act or disobedience of the orders of this Court. “ 11. On the other hand, it was argued by Sri.Poly Mathai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that once it has been found by the learned Single Judge that Ext.P8 (Annexure A4) was set aside, it was observed that the Tahsildar could not have negatived the claim of the petitioner in totality. When Ext.P8 was set aside and further direction was again issued to pass orders in the light of Exts.P2, P4 and P5 and duly adverting to the findings in the judgment, necessarily the Tahsildar was called upon to pass orders in compliance with Exts.P2, P4 and P5, “and in the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules”. Therefore, again a mandate had been granted by the learned Single Judge to consider the entitlement of the petitioner based on Exts.P2, P4 and P5 in accordance with the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules. Therefore, no orders could have been passed by the **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 21 Tahsildar ignoring the statutory provisions. The correctness or otherwise of the said findings, as now reflected in Annexure A5 dated 23.12.2011, is a different issue. The question is whether the petitioner was entitled for assignment of land under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules. As already indicated, Exts.P2, P4 and P5 did not consider the actual entitlement of the petitioner for assignment. The order at Ext.P2 is already extracted above. The claim of the petitioner was not allowed, whereas on the basis of the finding that the land is “thodu puramboke”, a direction was issued ; 1) to consider the application afresh, 2) assign the land leaving 5 mtr. belt along the thodu for protecting the thodu, - 3) the balance may be assigned to the appellant after following all required formalities under law. 12. It is evident that all the required formalities under law had not been adverted to by the Tahsildar, until Ext.P8 **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 22 (Annexure A4) was passed. Ext.P8 was set aside by the learned Single Judge again observing that the order should have been passed in compliance with Exts.P2, P4 and P5 and in the light of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules. The Tahsildar again considered the matter, which ultimately resulted in Annexure A5 dated 23.12.2011, wherein it was observed that the petitioner was not eligible for assignment of the land under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules. Sufficient reasons had already been stated for arriving at such a finding. On a perusal of the said finding, it is rather clear that the Tahsildar had proceeded on the basis that, by virtue of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.13149/10 he was bound to consider the claim of the petitioner relying upon Exts.P2, P4 and P5. It was clearly observed that there is no direction in the said orders calling upon the authorities to assign the subject land to the petitioner without observing the formalities and provisions under the Kerala Land **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 23 Assignment Act and the Rules. It is thereafter observed that the eligibility of the petitioner had been considered and sufficient reasons had been stated, for coming to a finding that the petitioner is not entitled for assignment of the land. 13. Having gone through Annexure A5 and after hearing the learned counsel on either side and on placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, we do not find necessary to proceed with this contempt case. It is clear from Annexure A5 order that the Tahsildar proceeded on the basis that he had to consider the claim of the petitioner based on the Land Assignment Act and the Rules, and that in Exts.P2, P4 or P5, the said aspect has not been considered. 14. Under such circumstances, we do not think that the respondent has committed any wilful contempt in respect of the order passed. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, is to challenge Annexure A5 order in appropriate proceedings. **Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and Contempt Case (C)No.200 of 2012** 24 In the result, this contempt case is dropped. Since we have already dropped the contempt case, there is no necessity to pass any separate orders in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2012 and the same is also closed. Sd/- **ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE.** Sd/- **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge