SASHI KUMAR v. ASHOK

(BY SRI KARUMBAIAH T. A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASHOK THE TAHSILDAR HUNSUR TALUK HUNSUR - 571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT.

2. HUSSAIN ASIF …COMPLAINANT THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HUNSUR TALUK HUNSUR - 571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT.

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY. (BY SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR A-1, A-2 AND PRO-FORMA A-3) …ACCUSED MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13853-DB CCC No. 1171 of 2023 THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHERE IN HE PRAYS TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS AND PUNISH THEM FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.23655/2022 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 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the complainant against respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.23655/2022 (KLR-RR/SUR).

2. Sri. Karumbaiah T. A., learned counsel for the complainant is present before the Court physically and submits that he has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the complainant to the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents/accused. The same is taken on record.

3. Sri. Harisha A. S., learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 is present before - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13853-DB CCC No. 1171 of 2023 the Court physically and submits that he has filed the compliance affidavit of respondent/accused No.1 on 10.03.2025 along with Annexures-R1 to R5. The same is taken on record.

4. The compliance affidavit consists of paragraph Nos.1 to 10. Paragraph No.4 of the aforesaid compliance affidavit indicates that on 18.04.2023, when the officials had assembled to survey the land in Sy.No.1 of Boreroppana kaval Village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore Distrcit, certain other persons who were in possession of the land notified by the complainant, did not permit the survey officials to conduct the survey. The mahazar report dated 18.04.2023 is produced and marked as Annexure-R1.

5. Paragraph No.5 of the aforesaid compliance affidavit reads as under: "5. Thereafter, our office scheduled the survey to be held on 20.06.2023 and the intimation, the same was also given to the complainant, the same is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R2. However, on communication by the complainant that he is unable to present for survey on 20.06.2023, the said survey was re-scheduled on 17.07.2023. On the said date, in presence of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Surveyor, Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant along with police protection, survey was conducted and the land was identified by the complainant in his presence. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13853-DB CCC No. 1171 of 2023 copy of the said survey report is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R3. As per the said survey report it came to our knowledge that the complainant is not at all in physical possession of the land measuring to an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.1 of Boreroppanna kaval Village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District, as claimed by him, to have been granted to his father in the year 09.07.1976 and released in his favour in the year 11.05.2020 by way of release deed."

6. Paragraph No.7 of the aforesaid compliance affidavit indicates that an endorsement was issued to the complainant on 12.09.2023 stating that he is not in possession of the extent of land has claimed by him. The copies of the endorsement and postal receipt is produced and marked as Annecxures-4 and 5.

7. Keeping in view the compliance affidavit and counter affidavit, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. M.LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein, in paragraph No.52 of the said judgment, it is held 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13853-DB CCC No. 1171 of 2023 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. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, the provision of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, compliance affidavit filed by respondents/accused and the counter affidavit filed by the complainant, it is deemed appropriate that this contempt proceedings does not survive for consideration.

9. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the liberty may be granted. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13853-DB CCC No. 1171 of 2023

10. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the complainant, the liberty is granted as sought for.

11. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped, with liberty as sought for. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16