Disposed

Smt. Sunitha v. Sri Dr Pradeep Kumar Hiremat

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2021CCC/297/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition arose from the State authority's failure to effect a 'katha' transfer in revenue records within four weeks as directed by a 2019 order. Despite the delay being over two years, the court accepted the accused's apology but directed the State to pay Rs.50,000 as costs. The petition was disposed of subject to future reporting on cost payment and departmental compliance.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of on acceptance of apology. State Government directed to pay Rs.50,000 costs to the complainant.

Smt. Sunitha Vs Sri Dr Pradeep Kumar Hiremat — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

C.C.C NO. 297 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SUNITHA D/O LATE KRISHNOJI RAO AGED 54 YEARS HOUSE NO.967/1 GROUND FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN ROAD 4^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 010

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SHRI IYENGAR S VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI DR. PRADEEP KUMAR HIREMAT TAHSILDAR GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216

¶15

... ACCUSED

¶16

(BY SHRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 25.03.2019 IN W.P.NO.33086/2018 (KLR-RES) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR FRAMING OF CHARGE THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the accused.

¶23

After perusing the record, we find that this is one of the several cases which we have come across where notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court, the Authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the said Act of 1964') are extremely slow in effecting the entries in the revenue records.

¶24

In this case, the breach alleged is of the Judgment and order dated 25^th March 2019. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Judgment and order read thus:

¶25

"2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the material available on record. The same would indicate that the sale is not in dispute. The said sale has taken place at the instance of Debt Recovery Tribunal of Tumakuru, wherein the land in question is sold in favour of the petitioner who has paid the sale consideration to the bank through the vendor who had obtained the loan from the bank by mortgaging the land in question. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions from the concerned Officer of Gubbi Taluk would submit that if four weeks' time is granted, the respondent authority would consider the petitioner's application for change of katha and transfer of katha would be effected at the earliest.

¶26

¶27

3. Accordingly, by placing the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate on record, this writ petition is disposed of. While doing so, the respondent authority is hereby directed to effect change of katha within four weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶28

Thus, the said order was passed on the concession made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the application of the complainant will be considered for change of katha and that the transfer of katha will be effected at the earliest. The Court granted four weeks' time to do so from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Along with the letter dated 9^th April 2019, the accused was served with the certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 25^th March 2019.

¶29

We may note here that the order dated 25^th March 2019 was passed in a writ petition filed in the year 2018 based on the representations made on 30^th November 2015 and 10^th October 2017. Another representation was made by the complainant on 10^th February 2021 (Annexure-C to this petition) before fling this contempt proceeding. The said representation was followed by a letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Tumakuru SubDivision addressed to the accused on 15^th February 2021

¶30

¶31

calling upon him to take action on the basis of the order of this Court dated 25^th March 2019. Even on 3^rd March 2021, the Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to the accused to take action on the basis of the order dated 25^th March 2019. However, no steps were taken.

¶32

Thereafter, on 26^th March 2021, the present contempt petition was filed. An affidavit was filed by the accused on 22^nd July 2021. The accused accepted in the said affidavit that he had assumed the charge of the post of Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk on 2^nd April 2020. Except for the excuse of COVID-19 duty, the accused has given no other explanation for the delay. The accused has relied upon his order dated 22^nd July 2021. He has stated that after complying with the mandatory requirement of notice of one month, the name of the complainant will be entered in the revenue records. Therefore, on 26^th July 2021, a detailed order was passed by this Court observing that prima facie, this is a case of gross contempt. A direction was issued to the State to nominate an appropriate officer to hold an inquiry into the delay in making compliance with the provisions of the said Act of 1964.

¶33

¶34

Along with the memo filed today, a report has been filed on record after holding an inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru Sub-Division. Notwithstanding what is observed in the order dated 26^th July 2021, the entire blame has been shifted on the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and consequently, the Tahsildar/Sheristedar/Case Worker are found responsible for the delay. Though in paragraph 9 of the order dated 26^th July 2021, a direction was issued to the Secretary of the Revenue Department to issue directions to all the concerned officers, compliance with the said directions has not been reported.

¶35

Thus, the scenario which emerges is that in the order dated 25^th March 2019, the concession of the State Government was recorded to transfer the katha in the name of the complainant. A direction was issued to effect the change within four weeks. A copy of the said order was enclosed with the representation dated 9^th April 2019 addressed to the Tahsildar/accused. Therefore, the entry ought to have been made on or before 9^th May 2019. Thus, there is a delay of two years and three months in complying with the said order. The delay is notwithstanding the very

¶36

¶37

clear provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the said Act of 1964.

¶38

It is shocking to note that for seeking compliance of the requirements of Section 128 onwards of the said Act of 1964, citizens are required to go from pillar to post. Even after this Court issued a writ of mandamus, the order of the Court has been ignored for more than two years. In the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, it is accepted that there was a delay on the part of the State machinery. We are not going into the question whether the Sub-Registrar or the Tahsildar are responsible for the delay.

¶39

In any case, going by the affidavit filed by the accused on 26^th July 2021, though he assumed the charge of the post of Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk from 2^nd April 2020, till 22^nd July 2021, he did not take any action. He has not explained why he ignored the representation dated 10^th February 2021 at Annexure-C and the letters addressed to him on 15^th February 2021 and 3^rd March 2021 by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner respectively.

¶40

¶41

Though in view of the belated compliance, further action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not warranted, this is a fit case where the State Government should be directed to pay a substantial amount by way of costs. It is high time that the Government Officers learn that for seeking compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 128 and other relevant provisions of the said Act of 1964 regarding entries in the revenue records, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post. Therefore, we propose to quantify the costs payable to the complainant at Rs.50,000/-. The State Government can always recover the said amount from the officers who are responsible for the delay.

¶42

Hence, we pass the following order:

¶43

(i) By accepting the apology tendered by the accused, the contempt petition is disposed of subject to the State Government paying the costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from today;

¶44

(ii) Though the petition is disposed of, compliance with the direction issued to the Secretary of the Revenue Department in paragraph 9 of the order dated 26^th July 2021 shall be reported to this

¶45

¶46

Court within a period of one month from today. We make it clear that if compliance is not reported within the stipulated time, a suo motu proceeding will have to be initiated against the Secretary of the Revenue Department for non-compliance with the order dated 26^th July 2021;

¶47

(iii) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 22^nd September 2021 under the caption of 'Orders'.

¶48

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Smt. Sunitha v. Sri Dr Pradeep Kumar Hiremat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunitha v. Sri Dr Pradeep Kumar Hiremat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer Vs Siddegowda

Kavya Vs K Nagaraja

M/S Bel Employees House Building Co-Operative Vs the Income Tax Officer

Executive Engineer P.W.D Vs Hanumanthegowda

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Thippamma

Smt. Sunitha Vs Sri. B. S. Naveena