Sri. Praveen Irappa Baligar @ Kasar v. Sri. R.Ramachandaran

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2021CCC/100005/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case concerns a contempt petition filed against government officials for allegedly ignoring directions to consider land representation. The court found substantial compliance with earlier orders and lack of formal application for survey by the petitioners before dropping the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dropped; complainants at liberty to make formal application for survey/reassessment.

Sri. Praveen Irappa Baligar @ Kasar Vs Sri… — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶8

CCC NO.100005/2021 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI. PRAVEEN IRAPPA BALIGAR @ KASAR AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. LOKAPUR (VENKATAPUR) TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN CODE. 587 122

¶11

HOLEBASU SHANKREPPA BALIGAR @ KASAR AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. LOKAPUR (VENKATAPUR) TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN CODE. 587 122

¶12

…COMPLAINANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.R.K.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

SRI. R.RAMACHANDARAN AGE. MAJOR, OCC. EX-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT PIN CODE 587 102

¶16

CAPTAIN RAJENDRA

¶17

¶18

AGE. MAJOR, OCC. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DIST BAGALKOT PIN 587 102

¶19

SRI.VIKRAMPASHA AGE. MAJOR, OCC. EX-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, R/O. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMKHANDI SUB-DIVISION, JAMKHANDI DISTRICT BAGALKOT PIN CODE587 301

¶20

SRI.SIDDU HULLOLI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, R/O. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMKHANDI SUB-DIVISION, JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN CODE 587301

¶21

SRI.SANJAY B.INGALE AGE. MAJOR, OCC. EX-TAHASHILDAR R/O. OFFICE OF THE TAHASHILDAR MUDHOL, TQ.MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN CODE 587313

¶22

SRI.SANGAMESH B. BADAGI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. TAHASHILDAR R/O. OFFICE OF THE TAHASHILDAR MUDHOL, TQ.MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN CODE 587313

¶23

SRI.GOPAL MALGATTI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS FOR BAGALKOT R/O. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN CODE 587102

¶24

¶25

SRI.YANDIGERI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. EX. ASSISSITANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS FOR MUDHOL TALUKA MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT PIN CODE 587313

¶26

SRI.BALAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE. MAJOR, OCC. ASSISSITANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS FOR MUDHOL TALUKA MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN CODE 587313

¶27

…ACCUSED

¶28

(BY SMT.VIDYAVATI M KOTTURSHETTAR, AAG, A/W SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO, SUBJECT THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 9 FOR TRIAL FOR NOT COMPLYING THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON BLE COURT ON 17.01.2020 IN WP NOS. 104754 AND 104755/2018 (KLR-RR/SUR), AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the complainants and the learned Additional Advocate General.

¶33

The learned Single judge on a writ petition by the complainants has been pleased to issue a direction in the following nature.

¶34

“4. Taking note of the above submission of the learned HCGP and looking to the nature of relief sought,

¶35

¶36

these writ petitions are disposed of directing respondents to consider the above said representations of the petitioners at Annexures-J, K, L, M and N dated 3.7.2018, 13.06.2018, 11.07.2018 respectively in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶37

5. It is open for the petitioners to file additional representation and it is also open for the respondents to call for any information required for consideration of the representation from the petitioners.”

¶38

On a query, the learned counsel for the complainants would submit that he has not filed any formal application seeking for survey as mandated or assessment afresh of the land in his possession and cultivation. He would submit that the lands have been described as Pot Kharab lands in the record of rights and hence on account of the same being in his possession and cultivation he has sought for resurvey of Survey Nos.36/3 and 36/4 and for reassessing the land including the Pot Kharab.

¶39

The very submission that the Kharab land is being cultivated cannot be appreciated in the light of Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 relating to classification of land, where Pot Kharab is described as unarable land.

¶40

¶41

Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the complainants would fairly submit that no application for survey or resurvey of the land has been made with the Competent Authority.

¶42

The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the authorities have already issued an endorsement way back on 05.10.2020. In that view of the matter, there being substantial compliance, we do not deem it appropriate to notify the accused. Further, in the light of the submission made by the leaned counsel for the complainants that no formal application is made, complainant is at liberty to make a formal application seeking for resurvey or reassessment of the lands. If such an application is made, the same shall be considered and disposed of strictly in accordance with law.

¶43

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dropped.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sri. Praveen Irappa Baligar @ Kasar v. Sri. R.Ramachandaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Praveen Irappa Baligar @ Kasar v. Sri. R.Ramachandaran

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

Vijaylaxmi W/O Vittal Katwe Vs Dr. Vasant S/O Krishna Revankar

Rahul S/O Lxman Bhojane Vs Karnataka State Law University

Vasanti W/O Suresh Anvekar Vs the Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Krishna Vs Asif

Sunitha W/O Late J Naveenkumar @ Naveen Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt.Neelabai W/O Late Hanamant Sherakhane Vs G.S. Prakash