Disposed

Sri Javaregowda v. Sri Lokesh K N

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023CCC/366/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Contempt Petition filed against the Tahsildar and State. The Court held that discrepancies in land records required a reasonable time for reconciliation and could not be termed willful disobedience. It granted an extension to complete the exercise within six months.

What did the court decide?

The complaint of contempt is disposed off; petitioners directed to provide necessary documents; respondent to complete record reconciliation within six months.

Sri Javaregowda Vs Sri Lokesh K N — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43579-DB CCC No. 366 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶8

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KIVUDEGOWDA,

¶11

SRI. CHIKKABASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KIVUDEGOWDA,

¶12

SRI. PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KIVUDEGOWDA,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. SANNAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA @ KIVUDEGOWDA,

¶15

SRI. JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O BASDAVEGOWDA, (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶16

SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O PATEL KENCHEGOWDA, (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶17

SMT BHARATHI B

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:43579-DB CCC No. 366 of 2023

¶20

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE K LINGEGOWDA,

¶21

SRI. DODDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O PATEL KENCHEGOWDA,

¶22

SRI. SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O KENCHEGOWDA,

¶23

SRI. KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O PATEL KENCHEGOWDA,

¶24

ALL ARE R/OF NELLURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK-571 430. MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶25

…COMPLAINANTS

¶26

(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P.,ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI. LOKESH K N, THASHILDAR, MALAVALLI TALUK, MALAVALLI-571 430. MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶30

…ACCUSED

¶31

(BY SRI.DEVRAJ ASHOK., HCGP FOR A1 & A2)

¶32

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE

¶33

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43579-DB CCC No. 366 of 2023

¶34

OF WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.2163/2022 DATED 2.2.2022 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶35

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Pursuant to notice dated 05.09.2023, Compliance Affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-accused Sri Lokesh.K.N, Tahsildar, Malavalli Taluk, Malavalli, Mandya District. A perusal of the Compliance Affidavit shows that pursuant to the order of this court initially an endorsement was issued on 16.10.2023, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-R1 along with translated copy. By the said endorsement, it is informed to the petitioners to provide certain documents. Learned counsel for the complainants submits that the complainants provided necessary documents to the authorities on 21.08.2023. Be that as it may.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:43579-DB CCC No. 366 of 2023

¶40

In paras 4 & 5 of the Compliance Affidavit it is

¶41

stated that the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records undertook darakasth work in respect of the subject land and upon examination, it was found that there is a discrepancy of about 2 Acres & 4 Guntas between the Akarband Record and Phahani Records. Further upon field examination of the land by the Revenue Inspector, it was also found that there is an excess of 17 Acres & 37 Guntas recorded in the RTC records, as compared with Akarband entries. It is further stated that in view of the same, to reconcile the discrepancies in the records and create fresh correct entries in respect of subject survey number, substantial time and logistics will be involved; such work has already been commenced and the application of the complainants will be duly processed upon completion of such exercise. The respondent-accused has also tendered his unconditional apology for the delay brooked in the compliance of Court order.

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43579-DB CCC No. 366 of 2023

¶43

There cannot be any dispute with regard to factual

¶44

aspect that while maintaining and carrying entries in respect of subject land, certain discrepancies were revealed and the authorities would require a reasonable time for completion of this exercise and therefore, the act of alleged non-compliance cannot be termed as ‘willful disobedience’ of the order of this court and therefore, the accused can be hauled up for contempt. The respondent-accused admits that the order is not yet complied with and prays for additional time for the completion of exercise subject to the complainants providing certain additional documents referred to in the endorsement dated 16.10.2023. Accordingly the complainants are directed to provide all necessary documents to the respondent-authority and on receipt of the same, the respondent to complete the exercise within six months.

¶45

With these observations the complaint of contempt is disposed off. In case, the exercise is not completed within six months despite petitioner-complainant submitting all

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:43579-DB CCC No. 366 of 2023

¶47

¶48

necessary documents, they are at liberty to seek revival of

¶49

the complaint of contempt.

¶50

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri Javaregowda v. Sri Lokesh K N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Javaregowda v. Sri Lokesh K N

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pavan a S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyappa Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri a Gopala Gowda Vs Sri J Manjunath

Sri Vijay Badiger Vs Sri Nagesh v Bettakote

Sri Shiva Prasad Shetty Vs Sri Guru Prasad

Puttaswamy Vs State of Karnataka