Partly allowed

M Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2022CCC/933/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Karnataka High Court dropped the proceedings after the accused Tahsildar filed a compliance affidavit explaining the delay was due to the pandemic and the committee had rejected the complainant's application.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceedings were dropped. It is noted that the complainant can challenge the Committee's rejection of his application.

M Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶7

C.C.C. No.933/2021 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M. NAGARAJU, S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A KASABA HOBLI, MALALICHANNENEHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577228.

¶10

...COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶14

2 . MR. NANDI KUMAR TAHSILDAR, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577228.

¶15

¶16

3 . MRS. GEETHA, FORMER TAHSILDAR, MEMBER OF REGULARIZATION COMMITTEE, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577228.

¶17

...ACCUSED

¶18

(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

¶20

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO HOLD ACCUSED Nos.2 AND 3 GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND PUNISH THEM AS PER LAW FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2019 IN WP NO.26396/2019.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The complainant filed the present contempt petition under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to take action against the accused for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 8.11.2019 made in Writ Petition No.26396 of 2019, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petition in part, has passed the following order:

¶24

¶25

" A direction is issued to the Thasildar to place the application of the petitioner before the second respondent committee within four weeks from the date of constitution of such committee and second respondent committee shall dispose of said application expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the constitution of such committee.

¶26

It is made clear that till application of petitioner is not disposed of possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed."

¶27

Sri Kiran Kumar, learned HCGP filed the compliance affidavit duly sworn to by Accused - Tahsildar, wherein at paragraphs - 3, 5 and 6 it is specifically stated as under:

¶28

"3. I most respectfully state that in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court the committee was constituted on 23.03.2020, immediately after the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation was

¶29

¶30

constituted, the Application of the Complainant was placed before the Committee and thereafter the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation after considering the case of the Complainant has by its order dated 31.12.2021 rejected the case of the Complainant. A copy of the order passed by the Committee is produced as Annexure-R1.

¶31

5. I most respectfully submit that in terms of the order passed by the Committee, I have also now issued an endorsement to the Complainant on 31.12.2021 intimating the order of Committee. A copy of the endorsement issued by me is produced as ANNEXURE-R2.

¶32

6. I most respectfully submit that I have highest respect and regard for the Order passed by this Hon'ble Court, I have never disobeyed order passed by this Hon'ble Court willfully. I have taken all steps to ensure that there is no delay in complying with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. I most respectfully submit that the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized

¶33

¶34

Occupation was constituted on 23.03.2020. Immediately thereafter the entire nation was put into lock down on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. I most respectfully submit that my entire staff including myself were also deputed upon the duty of curtailing the Covid-19 Pandemic, as such, through the committee was constituted the case of the Complainant could not be decided within a period of three months thereafter. I most respectfully submit that the delay has occurred primarily on account of Covid-19 Pandemic and due to administrative exigency."

¶35

Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel for the complainant submits that though the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been complied, the Committee has erroneously rejected the application of the complainant.

¶36

In that event, it is always open for the complainant to challenge the same, if so advised in accordance with law.

¶37

¶38

In view of the above, we pass the following:

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

i) The Contempt proceedings are hereby dropped .

¶41

ii) However, it is needless to observe that it is always open for the complainant to challenge the rejection of his application by the Committee, if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Gss*

M Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

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

The Registrar General Vs Smt. Salamma Raju

Moodalagiri Gowda K T Vs State of Karnataka

Iliyas Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivannagowda K Vs Narasimhamurthy

Sri G a Sudarshan Vs Mr Prakash

Senthil Vs State of Karnataka