Disposed

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

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021CCC/100006/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a contempt petition filed against the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited regarding alleged willful disobedience of interim orders. It held the petition was misconceived as the prior settlement was conditional and lacked Board approval, characterizing the litigation as a gross abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings disposed of; costs of Rs. 2 Lakhs imposed but suspended pending compliance with condition not to litigate further.

Smt.Neelabai W/O Late Hanamant Sherakhane Vs G.S. Prakash — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^nd 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 NOs.100006-07/2020 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SMT. NEELABAI, W/O. LATE HANAMANT SHERAKHANE, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAIDAPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALAKOTE, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER, I.E., COMPLAINANT NO.2

¶11

GUNDURAO S/O. LATE HANAMANT SHERAKHANE, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAIDAPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALAKOTE

¶12

... COMPLAINANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND :

¶15

G.S. PRAKASH, THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS:

¶16

¶17

COMPANY SECRETARY, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

A.K. MIRJI, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GLBCC DIVISINO NO-III, BILAGI, BALGALKOTE DISTRICT

¶19

G.V. YADAVANNAVAR, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GLBCC DIVISINO NO.XI, MAHALINGAPUR-MUDHOL ROAD, MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALAKOTE

¶20

R. GANESH, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GLBCC DIVISINO JAMKHANDI, DIST : BAGALAKOTE

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAMESH N. MISALE, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)

¶23

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 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, PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE INTERIM ORDERS DATED 11.10.2017 AND 30.05.2019, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.106685-656/2017, VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND G RESPECTIVELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard learned counsels.

¶28

The respondent/accused are the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, represented by its Company Secretary, Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, GLBCC Division, Jamkhandi, Bagalkote.

¶29

It is the case of the complainant that the land belonging to one Late Hanamant Sherakhane, was notified under Section–4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act’ for brevity) under notification dated 30.12.1960. Thereafter, notification under Section-6(1) came to be issued on 29.06.1961. On 10.02.1963, a draft award came to be passed in LAQ:SR:160, by the Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi, mentioning amongst others that the survey No.199/1A, measuring 1 acre and 12 guntas, was acquired for the benefit of Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, and the amount of compensation payable to Late Hanamanth

¶30

¶31

Sherakhane, was determined as Rs.598/- and as there was no claim made, the amount was deposited in revenue deposit on 27.03.1963 with treasury.

¶32

The land of late Hanamanth Sherakhane and others properties were acquired and allotted for the purpose of constructing administrative building and for accommodation of the Sub-Divisional Office and residential Colony at Mudhol in connection with the G.L.B.C. Project II Stage. The land came to be used for the purpose for which it was acquired and acquisition has been complete in all respects.

¶33

That the original owner i.e., Late Hanamanth Sherakhane preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.65486/2010, which came to be disposed off on 18.08.2011, wherein a direction came to be issued in the following terms:

¶34

“5. In the light of this submission and having regard to the passing of the award and the deposit of compensation amount, writ as sought for by the petitioners cannot be issued. However, the Assistant Commissioner has to intimate the petitioners 1(a) and 1(b) with the

¶35

¶36

aforementioned details regarding the deposit made along with necessary particulars including the amount deposited, by issuing a communicate to them within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court.”

¶37

Thereafter, another Writ Petition came to be filed in W.P.No.65740/2010, by the very same complainants, praying to demarcate the land to an extent of 6 guntas in survey No.199 of Mudhol, which totally measures 2 acres, 30 guntas. This court by an order dated 23.08.2010, at para -4 held as follows:

¶38

“4. It is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-D. Hence, this Court declines to comment anything on merits at this stage. Suffice it to direct respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation at Annexure-D for survey of aforementioned land and demarcating the land to an extent of 6 guntas and for preparing port-hissa records on merits in accordance with law as early as possible but not later than outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order.”

¶39

¶40

Thereafter, one more writ petition came to be filed by the complainants and the same came to be numbered as Writ Petition No.109785/2015, which again came to be disposed of by an order dated 09.09.2015, with following directions:

¶41

“5. Hence, the respondent No.3- Tahasildar is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 05.11.2014 taking into consideration the cancellation notification bearing No.RB-LQ-CR-138/11-12 dated 21.12.2012 with reference to survey number and the extent and shall thereafter pass orders in accordance with law after following due procedure as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶42

In the above writ petition, the prayer sought for was for a direction to the third respondent – Thasildhar to enter the name of the petitioner in the records of rights of property R.S.No.199/1A, measuring 35 guntas situated at Mudhol Village, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District.

¶43

¶44

Thereafter, Writ Petition No.102685-686/2017,

¶45

came to be preferred and the following prayers were made:

¶46

“(i) Issue writ or direction and declare that in view of no compensation having been paid to the petitioners or their predecessor-intitle under and in pursuance of the award dated 10.02.1963 vide Annexure-B bearing No.LAQ SR 160, the acquisition proceedings, initiated and referred to in the said award has stood lapsed and frustrated;

¶47

ii) Issue writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.2 to 5 that the land bearing CTS No.2296 admeasuring 53 guntas situated at Mudhol Town, Dist: Bagalakote, be forthwith restored to the khas possession of the petitioners;

¶48

iii) Issue writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.7, to effect the consequential revenue entries in the record of rights of the property bearing survey No.199/1A measuring 1 acre, 12 guntas situated at Mudhol Dist: Bagalakote in the names of the petitioners.

¶49

¶50

And in the alternative

¶51

iii) Issue writ or order or direction in the nature of writ or mandamus directing the respondent No.8, to effect the consequential entries in the CTS extracts of the property bearing CTS No. 2296 measuring 53 guntas situated at Mudhol, Dist: Bagalakote in the names of the petitioners.

¶52

iv) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶53

The matter was listed along with other batch of writ petitions. Thereafter by an order dated 14.07.2017, it came to be de-linked. By an order dated 03.08.2017, the learned Single Judge, directed respondent Nos.2 to 5 to furnish the latest position of the utilization of the property narrating the existing structures, put up therein. On 18.09.2017, the learned single judge has recorded the submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, that the matter is under the process of settlement. A similar representation is also recorded by the learned

¶54

¶55

Single Judge on 09.10.2017. Then by an order dated 11.10.2017, a joint memo came to be filed, which reads as follows:

¶56

“The petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5 (beneficiaries) most respectfully submit as under:

¶57

Assuming of deemed lapsing of the Land Acquisition proceedings of the land in question in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, both the parties to the above writ petition have settled the dispute in following terms:

¶58

1. The petitioners have amicably and with free consent have agreed to give up their rights in the property in question bearing survey No.199/1A (CTS No.2296) situated at Mudhol Town Dist. Bagalkot to the extent of approximately 20-21 guntas (the area in which the respondent No.2 to 5 authorites have constructed the building) in favour of the respondents No.2 to 5 and have agreed to give up any right title and interest in favour of respondents No.2 to 5 including the claim of compensation amount in respect of the said

¶59

10 -

¶60

land. For which the respondents nos.2 to 5 have no objection and agreed for the same.

¶61

2. In turn the respondents Nos.2 to 5 have agreed to give up their rights, title and interest in respect of in the property in question bearing survey No.199/1A (CTS No.2296) situated at Mudhol Town Dist, Bagalkot the remaining land approximately to the extent of 31-32 guntas in favour of the petitioners amicably with their free consent and for which the petitioners have no objection and agreed for the same.

¶62

3. The above settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondents Nos.2 to 5 is subject to the approval of the Board of Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, to whom the respondents No.2 to 5 are representing.

¶63

(emphasis by this Court)

¶64

4. The petitioners and respondents have agreed to take the final measurements of their respective shares after the approval referred to in para-3.

¶65

5. The petitioners and respondents have agreed to submit the final terms of settlement before this Hon’ble Court in accordance with the

¶66

11 -

¶67

agreed terms of para No.1 and 2 of the present joint memo after the approval by the Board referred to in para No.3.”

¶68

The learned Single Judge recording the same was pleased to dispose of the writ petition.

¶69

From the above narration, it is apparent that the complainants have made the judicial process, a tool to nullify the acquisition which was completed above 53 years ago. On the face of it, it is apparent that the judicial process has been abused. In the first instance, they have claimed right over the three guntas, then in the next writ petition it came to be enlarged into 33 guntas. Then in the next writ petition they claimed that no compensation has been paid to them and in the light of law laid down under the 2013 Act, they were entitled for restitution of the land.

¶70

It is relevant to note that neither of the parties had any right in the land on the date the acquisition was completed. The original owner having been divested of his right, title and interest, in a manner known to law, it is not known whether the writ petition itself were maintainable?

¶71

- 12 -

¶72

It is also apparent that there has been a gross failure on the part of the Board. The writ petition could have been resisted on the short ground of extra-ordinary delay and laches and that has been given a go by. We fail to note and appreciate as to how the acquisition that has been completed in all the aspects, could have been permitted to be questioned after this extra-ordinary delay. Probably, the fact that the land is now situated in the middle of the town acted as catalyst.

¶73

It is apparent that both the complainants were not aware of the facts that existed as on the date the acquisition was completed. The first claimant was not even married and probably she was still a teenager or probably just got into her teens. The second complainant was not even born. There is nothing on record that the original owner had ever laid a challenge to the acquisition.

¶74

We have perused the records produced and in fact from the records maintained by the accused, it is seen that the original claimant, has not even claimed the compensation and it also appears that he has volunteered to give the land. Despite this fact being available, it is

¶75

13 -

¶76

shocking to note that even officers of the Board thought of such compromise. It is not the case of the complainants that the original landowner was not served with the 12(2) notice during the process of completing the acquisition in the year 1963. That be so, we conclude the repeated writ petitions preferred as a gross abuse of the process of the Court. The justice delivery system is certainly for the benefit of bonafide litigants. In our opinion, the present litigation appears to be a motivated litigation and the complainants have used the justice delivery system to browbeat and coerce a settlement, which on the face of it, is without any legs to stand on.

¶77

The complainants having contended that the land measuring Sy.No.199 consisted of 2 acres 27 guntas and admitted the acquisition and the sale of 1 acre 12 guntas respectively in favour of the KNNL and sale of another extent of 1 acre + 12 guntas to a private party and having come before this Court claiming 3 guntas and thereafter enlarging the same into 6 guntas and now claiming the entire acquired land cannot at all be appreciated.

¶78

14 -

¶79

Though a memo is filed to withdraw the

¶80

contempt petition, we deem it appropriate to reject the memo. The attempts by the complainants shocks the conscious of this Court. The manner in which the litigation has been used as tool to knock away the property of a public corporation whose title stood transferred about 53 years ago and to state that it is only shocking, would be a misnomer. The audacity of the litigants to use the judicial process as a modus-operandi to grab lands belonging to a public Corporation and a Government property ought to be put down with a heavy hand.

¶81

In fact, the parties have even proceeded to the

¶82

extent of demarking the land to be ceded to the complainant. Hence, we deem it appropriate to impose cost of Rs.2 Lakhs but keeping in view the age of the first complainant, we also deem it necessary to suspend the payment of cost subject to the condition that the complainant shall henceforth not attempt to manufacture any more litigations with regard to the land that has

¶83

15 -

¶84

already been acquired and vested with the Board. We also direct the Board to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report to this Court within six months and initiate action against all concerned.

¶85

Upon notice, the accused have filed a compliance report by way of affidavit dated 10.12.2020 enclosing therewith Annexures-R1 and R2. The accused outright deny any disobedience. It is deposed that the Board of KNNL is headed by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, as its Chairman and the Hon’ble Minister for Water Resources, as its Vice Chairman and that the Managing Director is the Secretary of the Board. It is also stated that accused No.2 was not officiating as the Executive Engineer of the GLBCC Div.No.3, Bilagi. It is further deposed that the 4^th respondent is also not concerned with the subject in issue. It is further deposed that the acquired land has been used for the construction of Sub-divisional Offices, quarters for the officers and staff, godowns, temple etc., pertaining to GLBCC Sub-division11. That after the creation of the Corporation, the assets and liabilities of the Ghataprabha project have transferred

¶86

16 -

¶87

vide Notification dated 31.05.2001. It is further deposed that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 , there was an attempt to explore a possible settlement, that the settlement was made conditional subject to the approval of the Board of KNNL, that subsequently, the law came to be reversed in the case of Indore Development Authority and etc., Vs. Sham Varma and others and hence, a decision was taken not to approve the settlement by the Government of Karnataka which has communicated the decision by letter dated 21.03.2019 and the settlement being conditional and there being no approval of the Board, the instant contempt petition is misconceived.

¶88

As rightly pointed out, the settlement was conditional and subject to the approval by the Board. The same not having been approved and in the light of the narration above, the contempt petition is misconceived.

¶89

17 -

¶90

A copy of this order to be circulated to the Secretary, Department of Irrigation and Managing Director, of Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited for compliance.

¶91

Contempt proceedings stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JJ/RM

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Rahul S/O Lxman Bhojane Vs Karnataka State Law University

Krishna Vs Asif

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

The Divisional Manager, National Vs Sunitha W/O J. Naveenkumar @ Naveen