Dismissed

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company v. Smt. Archana

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2021CCC/278/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt proceedings filed under Section 2(b) read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 regarding delayed compliance with a High Court order for deemed land conversion were disposed of after accepting an unconditional apology, with costs awarded against the State.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped upon acceptance of apology; State of Karnataka ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- within one month.

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company Vs Smt. Archana — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

C.C.C NO.278 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S GRANITO INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY NO.27, 100 FEET RING ROAD B T M LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT. B M LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

... COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SHRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA .N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. ARCHANA THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159

¶14

....ACCUSED

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT

¶16

... PRO FORMA RESPONDENT NO.2

¶17

(BY SHRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶18

¶19

¶20

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2(B) READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT WHEREIN SHE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURTS PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS PASSED W.P.NO.35115116/2019 (GM-MM-S) DATED 26.09.2019 AT ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant

¶24

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the accused.

¶25

The accused appears in person. The accused states that the conversion fine payable by the complainant was communicated to the complainant as late as on 21^st January 2021. After the matter was passed over, now she states that the conversion fine has been deposited by the complainant in a Bank by a demand draft and now the Bank will transfer the said amount to the Treasury.

¶26

Perused the order dated 26^th September 2019.

¶27

The only direction issued by this Court was for implementation of the provisions of sub-section (9) of Section 95 of the

¶28

¶29

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 concerning the deemed conversion. Paragraph 7 of the said order reads thus:

¶30

"7. We therefore dispose of the petition by the following order:

¶31

(i) We direct the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district to immediately issue the challan specifying the fine amount payable by the petitioner. Challan shall be issued within a period of one week from the date on which a copy of this order is submitted in the office of the Deputy Commissioner.

¶32

(ii) On payment of fine as per the challan in terms of the order dated 6^th December 2018 passed in W.P.No.56696/2017, there shall be a deemed conversion under Sub-section (9) of Section 96 of the said Act, 1964.

¶33

(iii) The petitions are disposed of in the above terms."

¶34

The order in terms of clause (i) was required to be complied with immediately. The only compliance which was required to be made by the Deputy Commissioner was to communicate the fine amount payable by the complainant. However, the accused has complied with the said order sixteen months after passing the order.

¶35

The only explanation sought to be given in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by the accused is that she sought clarification from the Government about the implementation of the order of this Court as the lands subject

¶36

¶37

matter of the petition were governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act'). However, from paragraph 6 of the order dated 26^th September 2019, it is clear that the said issue was already raised and decided against the State Government.

¶38

Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for such a long delay for complying with the order of this Court. The order of this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to give effect to the legal fiction of deemed conversion.

¶39

Though an unconditional apology has been tendered by the accused, there is no explanation for the delay. It is only in the light of the belated compliance that we are not initiating any further proceedings. However, the complainant will have to be compensated by ordering payment of costs.

¶40

Considering the nature of the default and the stand taken by the accused, the costs deserves to be quantified at Rs.50,000/-. We may note here that the stand taken on oath by the accused in paragraph 2 of the affidavit runs completely contrary to what is held in paragraph 6 of the judgment and order dated 26^th September 2019.

¶41

¶42

9. Hence, we pass the following order:

¶43

(i) By accepting the apology tendered by the first accused, the contempt proceedings are dropped and the petition is disposed of subject to the condition that the second respondent/the State of Karnataka shall pay costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from today;

¶44

(ii) It will be open for the State of Karnataka to recover the said amount from those officers who are responsible for violating the order of this Court;

¶45

(iii) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding the payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 10^th March 2021 under the caption of 'Orders'.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company v. Smt. Archana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company v. Smt. Archana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Francies Vs Sri Tejas Kumar

Smt.Mala Vs Dr.Madesh

V. Lokesh Vs Shri Manjunath Prasad

M Krishna Reddy Vs Sri N Manjunatha Prasad

Prashanth Regency Welfare Association Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Pharmatree Corporation Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha