Partly allowed

Sri M Venkatesh v. Sri Tushar Giri Nath I a S

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023CCC/668/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court addressed a contempt petition for failure to grant land ordered in 2013. While finding initial conduct amounted to contempt, the Court accepted late compliance and assured future adherence, opting for costs against responsible officials instead of criminal charges.

What did the court decide?

Civil contempt proceedings dropped; Tahsildars ordered to pay litigation costs of Rs. 25,000 each split 50:50 between the complainant and local Legal Services Authority.

Sri M Venkatesh Vs Sri Tushar Giri Nath I a S — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶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.668/2021 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M. VENKATESH S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s.

¶10

SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O. LATE M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE & HOUSE HOLD, R/AT NO.MIG–7, HANAGALLUR AT & POST, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT, SOMWARPET – 571 236.

¶11

SRI V. KUMAR S/O. LATE M. VENKATESH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s.

¶12

2(a) SMT. S. SUKANYA W/O. LATE V. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSE WIFE, R/AT NO.2/1, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SUBEDARPALYA, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶13

2(b) SRI K. RAVICHANDRA S/O. LATE V. KUMAR,

¶14

¶15

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC.: WORKING IN PVT. COMPANY, RAT NO.2/1, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SUBEDARPALYA, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶16

2(c) SRI K. DARSHAN S/O. LATE V. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC.: DRIVER, R/AT NO.2/1, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SUBEDARPALYA, YEASHWANTPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶17

SRI V. SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O. LATE M. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/AT NO.MIG-7, HANGALLU AT & POST, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT, SOMWARPET – 571 236. ... COMPLAINANTS

¶18

(BY SRI CHIKKANAGOUDAR L.S., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI TUSHAR GIRI NATH, I.A.S., PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, (LAND GRANTS & LAND REVENUE) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ROOM NO.505 AND 506, SACHIVALAYA–II, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶21

SRI DR. G.C. PRAKASH, I.A.S., REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MYSORE HIGH VIEW,

¶22

¶23

OPP. TO KALAMANDIRA, VINOBHA ROAD, MYSORE – 570 005.

¶24

SMT. CHARULATHA SOMAL, I.A.S., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI – 571 201.

¶25

SRI ISWAR KUMAR KANDOO ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI – 571 201.

¶26

SRI R. GOVINDARAJU TAHASILDAR, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT, SOMWARPET – 571 236. ... ACCUSED

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI K.S. ARUN, HCGP FOR A-1 TO A-5 & PROFORMA R-6)

¶29

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT ORDER DATED 10.01.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.31265-31266/2011 (KLR-LG) AND THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2013 AND THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2014 PASSED IN CCC (CIVIL) NO.1412/2013 BY THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 HEREIN AND PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶30

¶31

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR HEARING BEFORE FRAMING OF CHARGES, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J ., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The present contempt petition is filed by the complainants 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 10.01.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge made in W.P. Nos.31265-31266/2011, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the writ petitions, granted three months time to respondent No.1 to grant the land to the petitioner.

¶34

Since the order of the learned Single Judge has not been complied within the time stipulated, the complainant was forced to file the Contempt Petition in CCC No.1412/2013 on 20.08.2013. In the said contempt petition, learned Government Advocate on instructions from the Tahsildar submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge will be

¶35

- 5 -

¶36

complied within a period of one month. Trusting the assurance given by the learned Government Advocate, the contempt petition came to be closed reserving liberty to the complainant to revive the contempt petition, if the order is not complied and it was also observed that in such an event, the matter would be viewed seriously.

¶37

In spite of the order passed by the CoOrdinate Bench of this Court in CCC No.1412/2013, the accused has not complied with the order. Thereby,

¶38

the complainant was forced to file the present contempt petition on 30.08.2021. In the present contempt petition this Court on 05.01.2023 passed a detailed order as under:

¶39

“It is an unfortunate case, where the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed the order as long back as on 10^th January, 2013 in Writ Petition Nos.31265 to 31266/2011 issuing positive direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Land Grants and Land

¶40

¶41

Revenue), Government of Karnataka, to grant the land to the complainant within an outer limit of three months and the extent of the land, the consideration for the grant of the land, if any, etc., are to be decided by the competent authority taking into account the norms evolved in the matter and the precedents. Even after the lapse of 9 years, neither the accused have complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge nor filed any objections before this Court even after filing of contempt petition and till today, the Government is not showing any diligence in compliance of the order which clearly indicates that it has no respect to the Court order.

¶42

Though the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 10.1.2013 granting three months’ time for compliance, as there was no compliance, the complainant was forced to file a contempt petition (CCC (Civil) 1412/2013) in the year 2013 wherein the learned Government Advocate on instructions had given an undertaking before this Court that the order passed by this Court would be complied with within one month from 19.11.2013 and as such, recording the said statement, the contempt petition was closed

¶43

¶44

reserving liberty to the complainant to revive the contempt petition and in such an event, the matter would be viewed seriously.

¶45

Inspite of passing the said order recording the undertaking given by the learned Government Advocate, till today there is no compliance which is nothing but daring ride on the Court, defeating the very order passed by this Court and degrading the majesty of the Court order. This attitude of the State Government not only obstructs the Court proceedings, but also is an abuse of process of law and harassment to the litigant, who approaches the Court with great expectation. It is high time for the State Government to take action against the concerned Officer otherwise this Court will have to pass orders in order to activate the Government.

¶46

In view of the above, this is a fit case to frame the charge against the accused.

¶47

The accused is hereby directed to be present before the Court on 12.1.2023 to hear and frame the charge as to why action should not be initiated against him as this is a classic case of dereliction of duty.

¶48

¶49

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, forthwith to take action, failing which, the concerned accused shall have to face the legal music.

¶50

List on 12.1.2023.”

¶51

Though the copy of the said order was communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, the order was not complied by the accused. Thereafter, the Tahsildar filed the compliance affidavit dated 11.01.2023, wherein at paragraph Nos.3 to 5 stated as under:

¶52

"3. I submit that, as per the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.Nos.3126531266/2011 dated 10.01.2013, the land bearing Sy.No.7/1 of Sangayanapura Village, Somavarapete Hobli and Taluk measuring 01 Acre has been granted in favour of one Sri Venkatesh, by order dated 18.12.2013, who was an ex-service man and who was residing at Hangal Village, Somavarpete Taluk. Subsequently, the said Venkatesh had expired on 06.01.2013 and as per the request made by

¶53

¶54

wife of the said Venkatesh i.e., Smt. Channamma, the grant order has been passed in her name by order dated 05.03.2015 and though saguvali chit has been issued in her favour, both grant orders dated 18.12.2013 and 05.03.2015 same have been produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R1 and R2 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Since the possession of the said property has not been handed over to the said Smt Channamma, she had filed the present Contempt Petition.

¶55

4. I submit that, since the said grant land comes within the jurisdiction of Forest Department and which comes under Nidtha reserve Forest Zone, the measures have been taken to grant the alternative land to the Complainant. Accordingly, Sy.No.1/4 of Takari Village, Somavarapete Hobli and Taluk measuring 01 Acre has been granted in favour of the said Smt. Channamma who is the Complainant No.1 in the present Contempt Petition. The order of grant passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, by an order dated 20.04.2022 and subsequently another grant order passed by the Tahsildar, Somavarapete Taluk, dated 22.04.2022. The

¶56

- 10 -

¶57

copies of the orders dated 20.04.2022 and 22.04.2022 have been produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R3 and R4 for the kind perusal of Hon'ble Court respectively.

¶58

5. I further submit that, based on the grant order the saguvali chit under Form No.7 has been issued in favour of the said Smt. Channamma and the mutation was also ordered in the name of Smt Channamma. Subsequently, the name of the said Smt.Channamma has been entered in Column No.9 of the RTC. The copies of the Saguvali Chit, Mutation Register Extract and RTC have been produced herewith as ANNEXURES-R5 and R6 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court respectively. Based on the said Revenue entries, the complainant was also put to the physical possession of the said schedule property by the revenue officials. Thus, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.Nos.3126531266/2011 [KLR-LG] have been fully complied with."

¶59

5. A careful perusal of the compliance affidavit

¶60

along with the annexures filed by the accused clearly

¶61

11 -

¶62

depicts that earlier, knowing fully well, a forest land was granted in favour of the complainant. After assertions made by the complainants, now the actual grant is made on 20.04.2022, i.e., after lapse of nine years. Though mutation entries and revenue entries are changed in the name of the complainants, physical possession is not given, by drawing the mahazar as contemplated under the Land Grant Rules. When specific question was posed with regard to handing over of physical possession, the learned High Court Government Pleader on instructions from the Tahsildar who is present before the Court, produced the mahazar along with photographs, a careful perusal of which, depicts that there is no demarcation with boundaries, there is no proper mahazar and the mahazar is dated 16.03.2023, which is yet to come, i.e., a post dated mahazar. Thereby, we were inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the Tahsildar for deliberately dragging the complainant to the Court

¶63

- 12 -

¶64

in the contempt petition, at that stage, Sri. K.S. Arun, learned HCGP sought time to produce the proper mahazar. Thereby, this Court requested the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to answer as to why action should not be initiated against the Tahsildar, who acted from whims and fancy, harassing the public.

¶65

Today (17/01/2023), Sri. Somanagouda Ninganagouda Naragund filed the additional compliance affidavit dated 16.01.2023, wherein at paragraph Nos.3 to 5 stated as under:

¶66

“ 3. I submit that, in the above Contempt Petition, I have filed a Compliance Affidavit dated 12.01.2023 and in that Compliance Affidavit, I have explained the factual aspects regarding the grant of land in favour of the Complainant No.1 i.e., Smt. Chennamma by Grant Order dated 20.04.2022 which has been produced before this Hon'ble Court as Annexure-R3.

¶67

13 -

¶68

4. I further submit that, subsequent to the hearing held before this Hon'ble Court on 12.01.2023, an Intimation Letter has been issued to the Complainant No.1 - Smt. Chennamma, thereby requesting her to be present on the land bearing Sy.No.1/4 of Takeri Village, Somwarpet Hobli and Taluk, measuring 1 acre and to take the physical possession of the said granted land on 13.01.2023. Copy of the said Intimation Letter dated 12.01.2023 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE- R7 , for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶69

5. I further submit that, as per the said Intimation Letter, I, alongwith other Revenue Officials including the Village Accountant and the Revenue Inspector of the said revenue circle were present on the above mentioned land on 13.01.2023. The Complainant No.1 - Smt. Chennamma had physically appeared on the said land and the physical possession of the said granted land has been handed over to the Complainant No.1 Smt. Chennamma. To that effect, the said Smt. Chennamma, had given a statement acknowledging the taking over of

¶70

14 -

¶71

physical possession of the granted land in her favour. Accordingly, a Mahazar has been drawn on the same day. Subsequently, the Photograph depicting the presence of all the persons and taking over of the physical possession of the granted land has also been taken. The copies of the Statement of the Complainant No.1 – Smt. Chennamma, Mahazar and the Photograph, all dated 13.01.2023 have been produced before this Hon'ble Court as ANNEXURES-R8, R9 AND R10 respectively, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. As such, the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.Nos.3126531266/2011 (KLR-LG), have been fully complied with.”

¶72

The said affidavit is placed on record.

¶73

Today, Sri. Jayaram .N, Principal Secretary,

¶74

Revenue Department appeared before the Court and submits that insofar as revenue department is concerned, such things would not be repeated in future and he also ensured that proper steps would be taken to comply the order within the time stipulated in

¶75

- 15 -

¶76

the State of Karnataka, if the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar have not challenged the order or filed any appeal.

¶77

9. The said assurance made by the Principal

¶78

Secretary, Revenue Department is placed on record.

¶79

The fact remains that though the order was

¶80

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as long back as on 10.01.2013 directing the respondent/accused to grant the land in favour of the petitioner/complainant within a period of three months, the accused has not complied the same. Thereby, the complainant was forced to file CCC No.1412/2013 in the year 2013 and on the undertaking given by the learned Government Advocate that the accused will comply with the order within a period of one month, the contempt petition was closed and admittedly, the same was not complied with. Thereby, the complainant was forced

¶81

16 -

¶82

to file the second contempt petition before this Court on 30.08.2021. The attitude of the Tahsildars, who worked from 10.01.2013 to 13.01.2023 is nothing but a criminal contempt as contemplated under Section 2

¶83

(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Though we are inclined to initiate criminal contempt against the Tahsildars, who worked in the Somvarpete Taluk from 2013 to 2023, on the assurance made by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department we are imposing cost instead of initiating the criminal contempt proceedings for disobeying the order of the learned Single Judge as well as contempt order for more than ten years. Thereby, the Tahsildars, who worked in Somvarpete Taluk as Tahsildars from 10.01.2013 to 13.01.2023 are liable to pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- each from their pocket and not from the Government funds within a period of four weeks from today. Out of the amount deposited by the Tahsildars, who worked from 10.01.2013 to 13.01.2023, 50% of the amount shall

¶84

17 -

¶85

be paid to the complainant towards litigation expenses spent in the writ Court as well as in the contempt Court and remaining 50% of the amount shall be paid to the Advocates Association, Somvarpete Taluk, Kodagu District for the purpose of library.

¶86

In view of the affidavit filed for handing over the possession to the complainant on 13.01.2023, this Court pass the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

The civil contempt proceedings are hereby dropped subject to condition that the Tahsildars who worked in Somvarpete Taluk, Kodagu District from 10.01.2013 to 13.01.2023 are liable to pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- each as litigation expenses and on such payment, 50% of the amount shall be paid to the complainants and the remaining 50% of the amount shall be paid

¶89

18 -

¶90

to the Advocates Association, Somvarpete Taluk, Kodagu District for the purpose of library and the Government Advocate to file an acknowledgment for having paid the cost within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, post this matter on 23.02.2023 for further action.

¶91

The copy of this order shall sent to the Secretary, Advocates Association, Somvarpete Taluk, Kodagu District forthwith.

¶92

Sd/JUDGE

¶93

Sd/JUDGE

¶94

MBM

Sri M Venkatesh v. Sri Tushar Giri Nath I a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Venkatesh v. Sri Tushar Giri Nath I a S

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

Sri Deepak E Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri. Humayun Fur Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

B S Srinivas Vs Nemichand a