Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
1. By judgment dated 30.09.2023, this Court had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi to accept an application under Form 6 of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
the judgment after obtaining the necessary reports. This contempt petition was filed on 18.03.2024 alleging that despite the lapse of five months from
the date of judgment, the respondent had not passed any order and requested the court to initiate contempt proceedings.
2. During the course of the contempt proceedings, the second respondent - the Agricultural Officer was impleaded since it was felt that his presence
may be essential. An affidavit was filed by the second respondent denying any failure on his part to comply with the directions in the judgment. It was
further stated that the delay in sending reports to the RDO’s Office occurred due to election work. In the meantime, the second respondent
appeared in person and since his explanation was satisfactory, his further appearance was dispensed with by order dated 28.06.2024.
3. The first respondent filed an affidavit dated 30-05-2024 stating that the petitioner's land was included in the data bank based on Annexure R1(a),
and hence, the application submitted in Form-5 was rejected with a direction to submit Form-5. On going through the aforesaid affidavit of the first
respondent, this Court felt it insufficient to answer the allegation of contempt of court and also felt it to be evasive. Hence an additional affidavit was
filed by the first respondent dated 07-08-2024, pursuant to the orders of this Court on 31.07.2024.
4. In the second affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that, after getting various inputs from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer,
by order dated 22.05.2024, the office of the RDO, after noticing that the petitioner's original Survey number, i.e., 336/2 is included in the data bank,
rejected the application under Form-6. It is further stated that the application was rejected because the report of the Agricultural Officer revealed that
the property was included in the data bank as ‘Nilam’ and hence petitioner's application was rejected.
5. The first respondent has sought to explain the delay caused in complying with the directions of the court and has also offered an unconditional
apology since according to her nothing was done willfully or deliberately to violate the judgment. The document evidencing the movement of files is
also produced as Annexure R1(b).
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the rejection of the Form-6 application is incorrect as the petitioner's property is not
included in the data bank. It was submitted that the respondent purposely ignored the sub-division of the property to deny the petitioner's valid claim
and that it was done willfully. The learned Counsel asserted that petitioner’s property was not included in the data bank and hence Form-6 was
valid and ought to have been allowed.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel
for the second respondent, I am of the view that, since the merits of the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner cannot be considered in a
contempt petition, the said question has to be left open. Ordered accordingly.
8. As far as the delay in disposing of the matter is concerned, I am of the view that the firstÂ
respondent has tendered an unconditional apology and has also tried her level best to comply with the timeline given by the court. Taking into
reckoning the affidavit filed by the first respondent dated 07-08-2024, this Court is of the view that the situation does not warrant proceeding with the
contempt, as nothing willful or deliberate can be borne out from the pleadings or from the documents produced. Since the order, as directed by the
court, has already, been issued though belatedly, I am of the view that the contempt case is only to be closed.
Hence this contempt case is closed.
