Gopal Fakira Sirsikar S/O Sirsikar v. Sri. Ujwal Kumar Gosh

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2019CCC/100737/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging violation of a status-quo interim order due to alleged demolition of the complainant's property, the High Court of Karnataka dropped the proceedings after the Assistant Director of Land Records submitted a report finding no demolition or encroachment in the specified area, satisfying the court that no disobedience occurred.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings under C.C.C. No. 100737/2015 were dropped as no violation of the interim order was found.

Gopal Fakira Sirsikar S/O Sirsikar Vs Sri… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

CCC No.100737/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶9

C.C.C. No.100737 of 2015 [CIVIL]

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

GOPAL FAKIRA SIRSIKAR S/O SIRSIKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOURER, HOUSE BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.786, BEHIND SAMRAT HOTEL, SIRSI. ... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SMT. V. VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI UJWAL KUMAR GOSH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR.

¶15

SRI NAGENDRA HONNALLI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SIRSI SUB-DIVISION, SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶16

SRI BASAPPA PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶17

CCC No.100737/2015

¶18

¶19

TAHSILDAR, SIRSI TALUK, SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶20

SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶21

SMT.TULASABAI W/O GANESH MIRJANKAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O:7^TH CROSS YELLAPUR ROAD, SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶22

SRI GAJANAN MIRJANKAR S/O SHIVANAND MIRJANKAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O:7^TH CROSS, YELLAPUR ROAD, SIRSI, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶23

... ACCUSED

¶24

(BY SRI C.S. PATIL, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR A-1 TO A-3; SRI K.L. PATIL & SRI SURESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE FOR A-4; SRI S.G. KADADAKATTI & SRI LINGESH KATTEMANI, ADVOCATE FOR A-5 AND A-6)

¶25

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W. SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP.NO.108095/2015 DATED:13.08.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-D.

¶26

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CCC No.100737/2015

O R D E R

Petitioner in W.P.No.108095 of 2015 has

¶31

preferred this Contempt Petition by contending that there is willful disobedience of interim order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said writ petition.

¶32

On the said date, learned Single Judge directed “ status-quo till the next date of hearing”. Petitioner has contended that despite the order of status-quo issued by this Court on 13.08.2015, nevertheless, there is demolition of the toilet portion of the backyard of petitioner’s property on 31.08.2015. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to file this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the status-quo order passed by this Court dated 13.08.2015.

¶33

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for accused Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for accused

¶34

CCC No.100737/2015

¶35

¶36

No.4 and learned counsel for accused Nos.5 and 6 and perused the material on record.

¶37

During the course of submission, our

¶38

attention was drawn to order dated 24.11.2017 passed in this petition, by which a direction was issued to the Assistant Director of Land Records (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ADLR’ for the sake of brevity), City Survey Office, Sirsi to hold the spot inspection of City Survey No.245 of Sirsi town measuring 1296 sq.ft., which is the subject matter in the Contempt Petition, regarding the existence of the structure or alleged demolition made by the accused and to submit a report to this Court on 07.12.2017. A copy of the writ petition as well as the contempt petition was served on the ADLR so as to make a spot inspection and submit a report to this Court.

¶39

Thereafter, on 19.02.2018, time was extended for submission of the report. The report

¶40

CCC No.100737/2015

¶41

¶42

of the ADLR dated 27.02.2018 has been filed along with the memo by the learned Government Advocate. On perusal of the same, it becomes clear that in respect of 1416 sq.ft. in CTS No.245, there has been no demolition of any structure nor removal of any encroachment. In fact, the interim order sought by the petitioner was in respect of 1296 sq.ft., but the ADLR’s report is in regard to 1416 sq.ft. which is an extended area, to the effect that in the said area, there has been no demolition or removal of any encroachment whatsoever.

¶43

On perusal of the said report, we find that there has been no disobedience or violation of the interim order dated 13.08.2015 issued by this Court. In the circumstances, we drop the Contempt Proceedings.

¶44

CCC No.100737/2015

¶45

¶46

However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he has grievance against the respondent/municipal authorities.

¶47

If the complainant has any further grievance against the municipal authorities, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

RK/-

Gopal Fakira Sirsikar S/O Sirsikar v. Sri. Ujwal Kumar Gosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Fakira Sirsikar S/O Sirsikar v. Sri. Ujwal Kumar Gosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar S/O Israil Chinta Vs State of Karmataka

Kumari Neela D/O Basalingappa Nyamagouda, Vs Suresh S/O Mallikarjun Kurle

Laxmibai W/O Mallappa Teli, Vs Suresh S/O Mallikarjun Kurle

The Belagavi City Corporation Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs Smt. Manjula W/O Vittal Basaligudi

Tungabhadra Left Bank Vs the Department of Water Resources