Disposed

M Krishna Reddy v. Sri N Manjunatha Prasad

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2021CCC/591/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition sought action against BBMP officials for disobeying an order directing land acquisition and compensation. The court accepted an apology, treated the paid amount as ad-hoc, and imposed a penalty while allowing revival if acquisition is delayed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of by accepting apology; accused/BBMP to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 within one month.

M Krishna Reddy Vs Sri N Manjunatha Prasad — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

C.C.C NO.591 OF 2020 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN: 1. M. KRISHNA REDDY S/O M. VENKATA REDDY AGED 57 YEARS R/O NO.59D, 4^TH 'A' CROSS 30^TH MAIN, BTM II STAGE

¶10

SMT. K. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O NO.59D, 4^TH 'A' CROSS 30^TH MAIN, BTM II STAGE BENGALURU - 560 076

¶11

... COMPLAINANTS

¶12

(BY SHRI. K.V. SATISH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. N. MANJUNATHA PRASAD COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N. R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002

¶15

SRI. B. R. HARISH NAIK DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INCHARGE) (LAND ACQUISITION AND TDR) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N. R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002

¶16

... ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SHRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR A1 AND A2)

¶18

¶19

¶20

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS FOR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE FINAL ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.27753/2018.

¶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 complainants and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

¶24

2. Paragraph 7 of the order dated 23^rd September

¶25

2019 of which breach is alleged reads thus:

¶26

"7. Under these circumstances, it is suffice for this Court to permit the petitioners to furnish fresh representation along with all relevant records of the title within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such representation is made, the respondent No.2 is directed to give notice to the petitioners and conduct spot inspection in the presence of the petitioners. If the authority comes to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 has utilized the land belonging to the petitioners for formation of storm water drain, the respondent-authority is directed to acquire the lands and pay compensation to the petitioners within six months from the date of order to be passed by the competent authority on the representation filed by the petitioners."

¶27

¶28

Thereafter, several representations were made by the complainants to the accused in the year 2019 and 2020 which are annexed to the petition.

¶29

The contempt petition was listed on 1^st December 2020 when notice was issued. Thereafter, the contempt petition was listed on 13^th January 2021 and 21^st January 2021. Only after speaking orders were passed by this Court that a sum of Rs.1,72,62,440/- has been paid to the complainants. The accused has relied upon the steps taken in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013) for acquiring the said land subject matter of this petition. It is stated that after an award is passed under the said Act of 2013, while paying the compensation, the sum of Rs.1,72,62,440/- will be deducted.

¶30

The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the complainants is that the acquisition proceedings under the said Act of 2013 will be inordinately delayed. Now, further steps for acquisition will have to be taken by the State Government.

¶31

¶32

5. We may also note here that though in the affidavit

¶33

of the accused, he has stated that a sum of Rs.1,72,62,440/has been paid to the complainants on the basis of a consent award, the complainants have disputed that they have given the consent. In fact that is the specific statement recorded in the order dated 13^th January 2021. Thereafter, nothing is placed on record to show that there was a consent granted by the complainants to receive the said amount or for passing a consent award.

¶34

Now, after finding that the property owned by the complainants was illegally taken over by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) without acquiring the same, belatedly, the compensation of Rs.1,72,62,440/- has been paid which will have to be treated as an adhoc compensation pending final determination as per the said Act of 2013.

¶35

We need not keep the contempt petition pending. The same can be disposed of by accepting the apology tendered by the accused in paragraph 10 of the affidavit dated 8^th February 2021. However, BBMP will have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

¶36

¶37

In the event, the acquisition proceedings are delayed on account of any default on the part of BBMP, the complainants can always apply for revival of this contempt petition.

¶38

Subject to the liberty granted as above and subject to the observations made as above, by discharging the notice issued in the contempt petition, the same is disposed of subject to the condition that either the accused or BBMP shall pay the costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- to the complainants within a period of one month from today. In the event, the costs is paid by BBMP, it will be open for BBMP to recover the said amount from the officers who are responsible for the breach.

¶39

Though the contempt petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding the payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 12^th March 2021 under the caption of ‘Orders’.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

M Krishna Reddy v. Sri N Manjunatha Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Krishna Reddy v. Sri N Manjunatha Prasad

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

M/S Granito Infrastructure Company Vs Smt. Archana

Sri Francies Vs Sri Tejas Kumar

Smt.Mala Vs Dr.Madesh

Prashanth Regency Welfare Association Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Pharmatree Corporation Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Sri R Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka