Partly allowed

Shri. Rafiq Ahmed v. B.R. Manjunath

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022CCC/1478/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a contempt petition filed against Tahsildars for non-compliance with a writ order directing disposal of land proceedings within 90 days, the High Court dropped the civil contempt proceedings after the accused complied with the order but imposed litigation costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil contempt proceedings dropped; present accused directed to pay Rs.50,000 litigation costs and permitted to recover Rs.25,000 from predecessor.

Shri. Rafiq Ahmed Vs B.R. Manjunath — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶7

C.C.C. No.1478/2019 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. RAFIQ AHMED S/O. LATE ABDULA REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. SHABANA W/O. RAFIQ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH COMPLAINANTS ARE RESIDING AT NO.7, MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 084.

¶12

... COMPLAINANTS

¶13

(BY SRI GAUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

B.R. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, THASILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶16

ANIL KUMAR, S/O. SIDRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, TAHSILDAR,

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶19

(AMENDED CAUSE TITLE V.C.O. DATED 17/11/2022).

¶20

... ACCUSED

¶21

(BY SRI K.S. ARUN, HCGP FOR A-1 AND A-2)

¶22

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS OF CONTEMPT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NOS.8819-8820/2019 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND PASS SUCH OTHERS AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J ., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The complainants have filed the present

¶26

contempt to take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge made in W.P. Nos.8819-8820/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge observed as under:

¶27

“9. It is stated that pursuant to the said order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, petitioners

¶28

¶29

appeared before the respondent – Tahasildar on 04.05.2017 and the said case was registered as LND/NA/CR/84/17-18. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite representation dated 07.03.2018 made by them to the respondent to complete the proceedings as per the order of remand passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, which was confirmed by t coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.39261/2010 and 39656/2010 c/w 39260/2010, the respondent has not concluded the said proceedings till the date of filing of these petitions.

¶30

Xxxxxxxx

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that if sufficient time is granted to the respondent – Tahasildar, he would dispose of the proceedings No.LND/NA/CR/84/17-18 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petitions) on merits in accordance with law.

¶32

Accepting the aforesaid submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondent – Tahasildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Bengaluru, is directed to

¶33

¶34

dispose of the proceedings No.LND/NA/CR/84/17-18 in accordance with law within 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

¶35

Since the original Tahsildar-Sri. Manjunath

¶36

and the present Tahsildar – Sri. Anilkumar have not complied the order, the complainant was forced to file the present contempt petition on 23.08.2019.

¶37

Learned AGA has filed the compliance affidavit of Sri. Anil Kumar, Tahsildar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru dated 28.11.2022 and has stated that the certified copy of the order was communicated to their office on 20.03.2019. Thereafter, fresh notices were issued to all the interested parties in respect of land in question and proceedings were conducted on priority basis. It is further stated that, in the year 2019, an Endorsement dated 10.10.2019 was issued to the complainant stating that the grievance of the complainant has been adjudicated. Thereafter, by

¶38

- 5 -

¶39

quoting the endorsement the aforementioned LND proceedings were closed on 15.11.2022 and thereby, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been complied.

¶40

On perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge it depicts that on the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the Tahsildar to dispose of the LND proceedings, in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The Tahsildar shall disposed of the same on or before 21.06.2019. Though the learned Single Judge directed to dispose the proceedings within a period of 90 days, very strangely, the original Tahsildar issued Endorsement dated 10.10.2019 stating that there is no possibility of making phodi. The issuance of endorsement is nothing but per se contempt, when the Court directed to dispose of the proceedings, the

¶41

¶42

Tahsildar has no business to deviate the Court orders and it amounts to criminal contempt as contemplated under the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶43

The fact remains that the Tahsildar has to

¶44

dispose of the proceedings within 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, i.e., on or before 21.06.2019. Very strangely, after filing of the present contempt petition, now the Tahsildar opened his eyes and completed LND proceedings only on 15.11.2022 and thereby, there is a delay of 3 years 5 months. The attitude of the then Tahsildar – Manjunath and the present Tahsildar – Anilkumar is nothing but harassing the litigant and also daring ride on the Court. When this Court directed to dispose of the matter within a period of 90 days, the accused ought to have comply the same on or before 21.06.2019, however, the accused has complied the order only on 15.11.2022. Thereby, the complainant

¶45

- 7 -

¶46

was driven before this Court by filing the present contempt petition on 23.08.2019 to implement the order passed by the learned Single Judge by spending litigation expenses, undergone to mental trauma and also suffered from financial loss.

¶47

Now after issuance of notice in the present contempt petition, now the endorsement was issued on 15.11.2022, which clearly indicates that the present Tashildar and earlier Tashildar have no respect to the Court Orders and unnecessarily deviated the proceeding and dragged the matter. Thereby, the respondent-accused persons, who are working under the State Government are unnecessarily creating litigation and harassing the general public, which is not the intention of the legislature. Both Tashildars i.e., present Tashildar and earlier Tashildar are liable to be punished under the Criminal Contempt.

¶48

¶49

Though we are inclined to initiate criminal contempt against the Tashildars and to impose cost of Rs.1.00 lakh each on the Tashildars, but on the persuasion made by the learned HCGP and finally, the accused having complied the order on 15.11.2022 i.e., after the delay of more than 3 years 5 months, we impose the reasonable cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by the accused to the complainant towards litigation expenses for unnecessarily driving the complainant before this Court by filing the present contempt petition, engaging the lawyer, undergone mental trauma and suffered financial loss. Ultimately, on perusal of order passed on 15/11/2022 clearly depicts that no relief is granted by the accused persons to the complainant.

¶50

In view of the above, we pass the

following:

ORDER

i. The civil contempt proceedings are hereby dropped subject to condition that accused-present Tashildar is directed to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant from his pocket and not from the Government fund, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶55

ii. The present accused is also permitted to recover a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the previous Tashildar – Sri. Manjunath.

¶56

iii. If the accused fails to pay the cost to the complainant within the time stipulated, the office is directed to post the matter to take action against the accused under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

MBM

Shri. Rafiq Ahmed v. B.R. Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rafiq Ahmed v. B.R. Manjunath

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

K. S. Kuttaiah @ Harish @ Ravikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Murudegowda @ Murudappa @Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Padmavathi Vs Smt Sandhyarani S

Smt Usha K Raju Vs Mr Srinivas

Shilpa. S Vs Sri. Manoj Kumar

Chalasani Venkateshwar Rao Vs Smt Potluri Padamavathi