Disposed

Smt Arogya Mery v. Sri T S Rama Lakshmaiah

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021CCC/450/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition, filed for non-compliance with a writ order directing restoration of revenue entries, was disposed of. The court held that the accused's order to initiate proceedings under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act amounted to substantial compliance. Costs of Rs. 25,000 were imposed on the State for the delay.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was disposed of with a direction for the second respondent to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the complainant.

Smt Arogya Mery Vs Sri T S Rama Lakshmaiah — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^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. 450 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. AROGYA MERY W/O KANIKYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDENT OF BETTADASANAPURA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SHRI. N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. T.S. RAMA LAKSHMAIAH

¶15

TAHASILDAR

¶16

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

¶17

KANDAYA BHAVANA

¶18

K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶19

... ACCUSED

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶21

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶22

REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶23

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶24

... PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO.2

¶25

(IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 07.07.2021)

¶26

(BY SHRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR A-1 & FOR PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶27

¶28

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 43279/2017 (KLR-RES) DATED: 18.03.2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AS THE ACCUSED

¶29

¶30

AUTHORITY IS NOT COMPLIED THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the accused as well as the State Government.

¶34

The breach alleged is of the order dated 18^th March 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said order read thus:-

¶35

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the 2nd respondent – Tahasildar to consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure-E dated 21.3.2017 for restoration of the revenue entries in respect of Sy.No.81, measuring 2 Acres, situated at Vittasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in the name of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case and it is for the 2^nd respondent – Tahasildar to consider the representation on the basis of the original records and documents

¶37

¶38

produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶39

According to the case made out in the petition, on 14^th September 2020, the complainant produced a copy of the aforesaid order in the office of the accused. In the contempt petition, it is pointed out that on 24^th March 2021, the accused submitted a detailed report to the Deputy Commissioner contending that the land claimed by the complainant was a Government land. As an order was not made by the accused, the present contempt petition was filed on 30^th June 2021.

¶40

An Affidavit has been filed by the accused today placing reliance on the order dated 23^rd July 2021 passed by him. In the said order, it is observed by the accused that the original record regarding the grant made to the complainant is not available. Therefore, by the said order dated 23^rd July 2021, the accused referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for initiation of proceedings under sub-section(2) of Section 67 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, on the ground that the land subject matter is a Government land.

¶41

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that an opportunity of being personally heard was not granted to the complainant and he was not allowed to produce the documents. He, therefore, submitted that the order dated 23^rd July 2021 cannot be said to be in compliance with the directions issued under the judgment and order dated 18^th March 2020 .

¶43

We have considered the submissions.

¶44

From the order dated 18^th March 2020, it appears that from the year 2000-01, the name of the petitioner - complainant is not appearing in RTC in respect of the subject land. The complainant relied upon the grant allegedly made to him on 14^th February 1979. The only direction issued by this Court against the accused is to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 21^st March 2017. There is no finding recorded on merits by the learned Single Judge as we can see from paragraph-10. Therefore, in our view, the order dated 23^rd July 2021 amounts substantial compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 18^th March 2020. If the complainant is aggrieved by the said order, he can always challenge the said order as well as the proceedings initiated

¶45

¶46

under sub-section(2) of Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by adopting a proper remedy.

¶47

The order dated 18^th March 2020 ought to have

¶48

been complied with within a period of eight weeks from 14^th September 2020. Before filing the contempt petition, the complainant had made representation on 24^th February 2021. Even the said representation was ignored and therefore, the present contempt petition was filed on 30^th June 2021. As late as on 23^rd July 2021, the accused has passed the aforesaid order. Though the accused has tendered unconditional apology for the delay, there is no explanation for the long delay. Therefore, the State Government will have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

¶49

Accordingly, we pass the following order:-

¶50

(i) The contempt petition is disposed of, subject to the condition of the second respondent paying costs of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant;

¶51

(ii) It will be always open for the complainant to challenge the order dated 23^rd July 2021 as well as initiation of proceedings under sub-section (2) of Section 67

¶52

¶53

of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in accordance with law;

¶54

(iii) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance with direction of payment of costs, the petition shall be listed under the caption 'orders' on 16^th September

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Srl.

Smt Arogya Mery v. Sri T S Rama Lakshmaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Arogya Mery v. Sri T S Rama Lakshmaiah

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

Mallikarjunaiah B K Vs M. Natesh

Smt Lakshmamma W/O Late P Krishnappa Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

Padmayya N Naik Vs Muktar Ahammed

Eshwara Naik Vs Raju Shetty

Vishwanatha Shetty Vs Avinash Kumar

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Leelavathi v Shetty