Contempt Petition No. 491 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.491 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O. LATE APPAJI REDDY AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS OCCUPATION: NIL. 2. SMT. K. JAYANTHI W/O. LATE A. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE. 3. SMT. SWETHA D/O. LATE A. SRINIVASA AND W/O. SRI BHARATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE. 4. SMT. SHILPA D/O. LATE A. SRINIVASA AND W/O SRI MAHESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE. 5. SRI A. SOMASHEKARA S/O. LATE APPAJI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.884, 3RD CROSS, 11TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038. (BY SRI M.S. SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SRI SYED KHADER NAWAZ, ADVOCATE) …COMPLAINANTS AND: 1. SRI SHEKAR TAHASHILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM BENGALURU-560 036. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING ANNEXE DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., A.G.A.) * * * THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 10-11-2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.6205 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND TRY THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt petition has been initiated against the accused for disobedience of the order dated 10-11-2022 passed in Writ Petition No.6205 of 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR).
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, learned senior counsel for the complainants, and Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the accused. 3. Learned senior counsel for the complainants has contended that in spite of issuance of legal notice to the accused, the accused has not complied with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. He has further contended that the writ proceeding has been initiated by the complainants/petitioners seeking relief of mandamus in nature. Accordingly, mandamus was issued directing the Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk/respondent No.3 therein to consider petitioners' subject representation in the light of Special Deputy Commissioner's order dated 30-8-2016 and judgment and decree in Original Suit Nos.1705 of 2007 and 4779 of 1995 within an outer limit of four months. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 Learned senior counsel refers to various documents, such as Annexure-A-final order passed by the learned Single Judge, Annexure-B-legal notice served on the accused on 29-11-2022, Annexures-C to G-notarized Xerox copies of original Aadhaar cards of complainant Nos.1 to 5 respectively and Annexure-H-original Death Certificate of A. Srinivasa, S/o. Late Appaji Reddy. He further submits that the complainants have not filed any similar contempt proceedings and no contempt petition is pending for claiming similar relief. Learned senior counsel further submits that the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court has attained finality. Therefore, it does not arise for recourse of again in respect of the suit schedule property depicted therein and even the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ side. To that extent, he has filed counter affidavits to the compliance affidavits filed by the accused. Hence, he prays for consideration of the grounds urged in this contempt proceedings and to take action against the accused. 4. On contrary, Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned Additional Government Advocate, referring to compliance affidavit dated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 29-5-2024 filed by accused No.1, submits that Writ Petition No.6205 of 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) was filed by Sri A. Srinivasa and Sri A. Somashekar seeking direction against the respondents to the said writ petition to consider the applications/representations of the petitioners dated 5-6-2009, 3-11-2011, 4-11-2011, 25-1-2016 and 30-10-2017 to enter the names of the petitioners in respect of 4 acres of land in Survey No.211 situated at Bansawadi Village, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk. The said writ petition was disposed off by vide order dated 10-11-2022 by issuing direction to consider the petitioners' subject representations in the light of Deputy Commissioner's order dated 30-8-2016 and judgment and decree in Original Suit Nos.1705 of 2007 and 4779 of 1995 within an outer limit of four months. Subsequent to disposal of the said writ petition, the learned counsel for the complainants had issued a notice dated 29-11-2022. Thereafter, a letter dated 29-8-2023 was addressed to the learned counsel for the complainants to produce certain documents in respect of land in question i.e. Survey No.211 of Bansawadi Village, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk, which is classified as "Sarakari Kere" in the revenue records. Copy of the intimation - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 letter dated 29-8-2023 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R1. She further submits that despite letter dated 29-8-2023 from the Office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, the complainants or their learned counsel has failed to produce the documents to substantiate their claim in respect of land in Survey No.211 of Bansawadi Village, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk. Therefore, after examining the records available in the Office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, endorsement dated 19-9-2023 has been issued and the same has been sent by registered post to the learned counsel for the complainants. By virtue of said endorsement, the request of the complaints to enter their names in the revenue records has been rejected. Copy of the endorsement dated 19-9-2023 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R2. Further, the learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the reply affidavit dated 4-3-2025 submits that the accused No.1 has stated the same facts as in compliance affidavit dated 29-5-2024 from paragraph Nos.1 to 4. However, at paragraph No.5, he has stated that that subsequent to letter dated 29-8-2023 from the Office of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, the complainants or their - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 learned counsel produced a reply dated 4-6-2023 along with the self attested documents of the Death Certificate of A. Srinivasa, Xerox copy of Family Tree, Patta Book Xerox copy (Xerox copy having the signature of Secretary, Banaswadi Village Panchayat), Xerox copy of Manual Pahanis from the year 1987-88 to 1989-90, 1976-77 to 1981-82, 1971-72 to 1975- 76, Xerox copy of Form-8, Xerox copy of Survey Sketch, Xerox copy of Inam Abolition Endorsement and copies of Case No.97/1960-61 of the Court of the Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition to substantiate their claim in respect of land in Survey No.211 of Banaswadi Village, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk. The endorsement was issued from the Office was that the complainants had not filed any certified records on 20-9-2023 along with the application filed requesting khatha, as per order of this Court dated 29-11-2022. Therefore, she prayed to consider the affidavit filed by the accused and to close the contempt proceedings against the accused. 5. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the complainants submits that after the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the writ proceedings has been initiated by the petitioners, who have been arrayed as the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 complainants in these proceedings. Therefore, it is required to take action against the accused and so also emphatically submitted for implementation of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ side. 6. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the complainants as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the accused and the compliance affidavit filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate in detail and also referring to various documents of the Revenue Authorities, it is relevant to refer paragraph Nos.6 to 12 of the reply affidavit filed by accused No.1 dated 4-3-2025, which reads as under: "6. As per above said reply dated 04.09.2023, once again the same had been passed to this Office Case Worker, Records Section to issue Original Grant File relating to the Order of the Court of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition to Appaji Reddy s/o Hanumaiah in the Records Section and Mutation approved as per the said Order and other related records. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the Case Worker, Records Section, issued Endorsement - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 enclosing with the Letter of Tahsildar Grade-2 that originally Sy. No.211 of Banaswadi Village, Government Lake Land, in the said land, availability of Inam DC Order granted to Appaji Reddy is not found in the Records Section. Further, the Register of Form-8 is available wherein the entry of the name of Appaji Reddy is not entered. The Copy of available ILRR Register, Mutation Copy and Certified Copies of Manual Pahanis was submitted to our office for kind consideration. 8. It is submitted that on verification of the records available in the Records Section of this Office relating to Government Lake Land of Sy. No.211 enclosed therewith and records filed by the complainant, the Copy of ILRR Register available in our Office shows the above said Sy. No.211 is mentioned as Banaswadi Lake. The copy of the ILRR register is herewith produced as Annexure-R3. Further, in original Manual Pahani, column No. (9) of the Year 1966-67 to 1970-71 and 1976-77 to 1981-82, there is an entry as Government Banaswadi Lake and in Column 12 (2) there is no any entry. The copies of the original Manual Pahani, column No.(9) of the Year 1966-67 to 1970-71 and 1976-77 to 1981-82, along with the typed copies of the same are herewith produced as Annexure-R4. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 9. It is further submitted that in Column (11) of Pahani of 1982-83 to 1999-2000, as per Order of Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore District, Order Number: Revision Petition 9/1995-96 dated: 17/07/1995. The Mutation as per M.R. No.2/1999- 2000 approved to cancel the name of the respondents and to make entry as Government lake, accordingly in Pahani Column (9) entered as Government Lake. Accordingly even in Computerized Pahani also, the Pahani as Government Lake is in running (is in operation). The copy of the Mutation Extract in No.2/1999- 2000 and pahani of the year 1999-2000 is herewith produced as Annexure-R5. The copy of the computerized pahani for the year 2024-2025 is herewith produced as Annexure-R6. 10. Further, as per Circular Number: RD32/LGB/2015 dated: 14/07/2021 of the with regard to preserving the Government Lakebed, Pond, and other Embankment/Water Basin/Water Source coming in revenue records, all the Government Lake, Kharab Lake, Pond, Katte or Inland Water Course called by any other name and Out Zone Embankment areas, Raja Kaluve Main Inlet Embankments, Cross-Sections, canals, outflows stated in revenue records and Main flowing Water Canals flowing outside which have - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 lost its nature, there is no permission to use such areas for any Government/Private Purposes. The Circular has been passed to take up stringent action so that such water bodies/water basins should not be utilized for any other purposes and to take up all measures necessary for rejuvenation of Lake Areas in respect of preserving such lakes. The copy of the said Circular is herewith produced as Annexure-R7. 11. Hence as the records filed by the complainants' counsel, M/s. L.S. Chikkanna Gowdar and Associates on dated: 04/09/2023 do not contain any documents showing the Genuinety of the grant and the same being forged duplicate/bogus records, an endorsement was issued on 07.02.2025 informing the complainants that there is no option to take up action as per their requisition and take notice that originally the Sy. No.211 of Banaswadi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, is Government lake, there is no option to issue khatha for the said Lake Land. A copy of the said endorsement dated 07.02.2025 is herewith produced as Annexure-R8. 12. It is submitted that the State is taking steps to challenge the order passed in Case Number: RRT(2) (E) CR/6/2016-17 C/W RRT(2) (E) CR/26/2001-02 of the Court of the Special Deputy - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru Urban District, on dated: 30/08/2016, ordered directing the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, directing to restore the Khatha of Land 4-00 Acres Portion of Government Lake Land of Sy. No.211 of Banaswadi in favour of LRs (Legal Representatives) of Appaji Reddy. The said file is pending approval of the Concerned Legal Cell, for issuance of the Government Order. Further the judgement and decree passed in O.S. No. 4779/1995 dated: 29/11/2008 is not binding on the department of revenue as we are not parties to the said suit. Further the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011 passed in O.S. No: 1705/2007 is a suit for bare injunction, which will not confer any title rights to the complainants. The complainant is not in physical possession of the said land of 4 acres." 7. Keeping in view the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit Nos.1705 of 2007 and 4779 of 1995, so also the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ side and in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO v. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 OnLine SC 1764, wherein at paragraph No.52, it has observed as under: 52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court's power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court's direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice." 8. Whereas, keeping in view the contentious contentions taken up by the learned senior counsel for the complainants in - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 this matter and the complainants have initiated the proceedings against the accused for disobedience of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ side and more so, the learned senior counsel emphatically submitted to take action against the accused, it is relevant to refer the contentious contentions taken up in this contempt proceedings, which is as under: "4. The Complainants submit that the Final Order came to be passed on 10.11.2022 and certified copy of the aforesaid Final Order in the aforesaid Writ Petition came to be delivered to the Complainants on 19.11.2022 and the Complainants immediately appending the certified copy of the Final Order dated 10.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.6205/2019 (KLR- RR/SUR) got issued the Legal Notice dated 29.11.2022 to the Respondent Accused herein to whom the learned single judge of this Hon'ble Court were pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus directing him to consider the request of the Complainants herein/Petitioners in the writ petition requesting to consider their representation and comply with the direction of the learned single judge passed in the above writ petition. The said Legal Notice was served on the Respondent Accused herein personally by muddam on 29.11.2022 and - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 obtained the seal and signature of the Respondent Accused office on the office copy of the said legal notice, which is being produced herein as Annexure- B for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 5. The Complainants submit that the aforesaid Final Order Annexure-A came to be passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court after hearing both the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents therein. It is further submitted that after securing the certified copy of the Final Order as stated above the Respondent Accused herein was intimated of the said fact through their Legal Notice dated 29.11.2022 to the Respondent Accused herein on 29.11.2022 itself. Therefore, Respondent Accused herein cannot set up a plea that the Respondent Accused is not aware of the Final Order passed in the above WP and seek an excuse." 9. Therefore, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra, so also the compliance affidavit filed by the accused, and more so, the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is deemed appropriate that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ side cannot be implemented. Therefore, this contempt petition does not survive for consideration to take action against the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11566-DB CCC No. 491 of 2023 accused. Consequently, this contempt proceedings is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of the contempt petition, pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK