Allowed

Smt Lalitha v. Manjunath Prasad I a S

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2020CCC/325/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court considered a contempt petition filed by a complainant alleging wilful violation and disobedience of a court order dated 16.10.2019. The accused submitted that regularization of sites for 107 persons, including the complainant, was completed on 17.08.2020.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceedings against the accused persons are dropped as the court direction has been complied with.

Smt Lalitha Vs Manjunath Prasad I a S — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶8

C.C.C. No.325 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. LALITHA W/O SRI. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OWNER OF SITE NO.50, R/AT B.KATIHALLI KOPPLU VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI. M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

¶13

AND:

¶14

MANJUNATH PRASAD I.A.S THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

R.GIRISH, I.A.S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.

¶16

… ACCUSED (SRI. T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 (THROUGH VC))

¶17

¶18

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN SHE PRAYS THAT THIS HON`BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR WILFUL VIOLATION AND DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT ORDER DATED 16.10.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NOs.56301/2015 AND 56945-56973/2015 (KLR-RES) AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

¶22

for the accused has filed a memo enclosing the proceedings of Taluka Panchayat, Hassan, dated 17.08.2020 and a sketch stating that in respect of thirty three persons, who had approached this Court and fifty eight other persons, totally one hundred and seven persons, regularization has been made in respect of the residential sites in their possession. It is stated that the same is in compliance of the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No.56301/2015 and connected writ petitions and therefore, the contempt proceeding may be dropped as against the accused.

¶23

¶24

2. We have heard learned counsel for the

¶25

complainant and learned counsel for the accused and perused the material on record.

¶26

The direction issued by this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions was that steps had to be taken to regularize the allotment of sites made in favour of petitioners and others (one hundred and seven in number) either under Ashraya Yojana or under any other extant scheme/s with retrospective effect since the sites in question had already been granted to petitioners way back in the year 1990-91 and they had constructed their residential houses thereon. That the said proceeding be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is noted that there were thirty petitioners who had approached this Court and the aforesaid order was passed on 16.10.2019. Only one of the petitioners out of thirty petitioners i.e., the first petitioner therein has filed this contempt petition alleging non-compliance and disobedience of the

¶27

¶28

direction issued by this Court on 16.10.2019. It is pursuant to the initiation of the contempt proceedings that proceedings have been conducted by Taluka Panchayat on 17.08.2020 to give effect to the direction issued by this Court. It is noted from the order dated 13.08.2020 that in the counter affidavit of Tahasildar of Hassan, it was stated that a direction would be issued to the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, Hassan, to comply with the order of this Court, but no such compliance had been made.

¶29

In the circumstances, this Court observed that by 20.07.2020, there must be compliance of the direction issued by this Court by the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, Hassan. It is in that context that the memo has been filed enclosing proceedings of the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, Hassan, dated 17.08.2020 enclosing the sketch showing the regularization of one hundred and seven sites in Sy. No.17 of B.Katihalli village totally measuring four Acres.

¶30

¶31

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶32

submits that one hundred and seven sites which have been regularized included site which has been allotted to the complainant and also other writ petitioners. That hakku patras were already issued to them and it is pursuant to that, some of the said persons may have been in possession of their respective sites and have constructed their houses thereon. He further states that now that the regularization order has been made, there is due compliance of the order of this Court.

¶33

We find that the direction issued by this Court

¶34

has been complied with and hence, the Contempt proceeding against the accused is dropped.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

sma

Smt Lalitha v. Manjunath Prasad I a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lalitha v. Manjunath Prasad I a S

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

S J M Dental College & Hospital Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Syamala Reddy Dental Vs State of Karnataka

Sharavathi Dental College & Hospital Vs State of Karnataka

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S. Digital Express

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S. S. R. Enterprises

sri.bhamy sudhakar shenoy Vs State of Karnataka by