Disposed

Sri Paramesh Kumar B P v. Sri. Tushar Girinath, I.A.S.

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024CCC/113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt of court complaint alleging non-compliance with a single judge order regarding site allottment. The court closed proceedings as the respondent agreed to pay compensation; quantification was deemed outside contempt jurisdiction, with further relief possible via independent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not surviving. Compensation to be assessed and paid within three months.

Sri Paramesh Kumar B P Vs Sri… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50468-DB CCC No. 113 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶8

CCC No. 113 OF 2024 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI PARAMESH KUMAR B. P., S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/OF NANDI NILAYA, No.8/7, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, 6^TH CROSS, K. P. AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560023.

¶11

…COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. TUSHAR GIRINATH, I.A.S., THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶16

SMT. PALLAVI, K.M.A.S., THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, No.8, 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:50468-DB CCC No. 113 of 2024

¶19

SMT. LAKSHMI, ASST. REVENUE OFFICER, CHAMARAJAPET DIVISION, DR.A.C.M. RAMAN STREET, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560053.

¶20

…ACCUSED

¶21

(BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR A1 & A3; A2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 23.05.2023 IN W.P.No.25568/2022 (LB-BMP) VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶27

Following were the directions issued by learned Single Judge

¶28

in his order dated 23.05.2023 while disposing of the writ petition,

¶29

"This writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an application in terms of the endorsement dated 11.07.2022 at Annexure ‘K’ for grant of an alternative site in lieu of property bearing No.45 situated at Muneshwara Layout, which was earlier granted by the respondent-BBMP under a registered sale deed dated 19.06.2006. As and when

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50468-DB CCC No. 113 of 2024

¶31

such an application is given by the petitioner, the respondent-BBMP shall act and grant an alternative site as undertaken by them in the impugned endorsement dated 11.07.2022."

¶32

The contempt is alleged in respect of non-compliance of the above directions stating that the site is not allotted.

¶33

In response to the notice of this Court, respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has filed its response dated 06.06.2024 in which after narrating the factual background and the history of development, it is stated that the respondent, though made all sincere efforts and honest attempts to allot the alternative site to the complainant as directed by this Court, the site identification could not be done and that it was not possible to identify or allot the site which may have the clear title. It is stated that therefore, the site with clear title is not possible to be allotted to the complainant.

¶34

3.1 Thereafter, respondent-BBMP has filed memo dated

¶35

16.10.2024 which reads as under,

¶36

"The accused herein has decided to pay the compensation to the complainant in lieu of the site of the complaint herein and in this regard the commissioner BBMP has given approval for the same

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50468-DB CCC No. 113 of 2024

¶38

and a copy of which is produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Hence the same may kindly be taken on record, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶39

3.2 Along with the memo, the order/endorsement dated 15.10.2024 of the competent authority is produced which is in vernacular which was explained to the Court to submit that it gives approval for payment of compensation to the complainant in lieu of the alternative site which is not possible to be allotted.

¶40

In course of the hearing today, learned advocate for the complainant, on instructions of the complainant, submitted that the complainant is ready to accept the compensation.

¶41

4.1 At this stage, learned advocate for the complainant submitted that the compensation should be calculated in a particular way. However, this aspect is premature to be addressed as well as it is not the domain of contempt jurisdiction.

¶42

The complainant has agreed in principle to accept monetary compensation in lieu of allotment of site. This aspect would require the Court to close the contempt proceedings.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50468-DB CCC No. 113 of 2024

¶44

5.1 If the complainant is, however, not satisfied with the amount of compensation, which he will receive as agreed today, it will be permissible for the complainant to institute appropriate independent proceedings, if permissible, in accordance with law in that regard.

¶45

The Court however does not express any opinion on merits

¶46

but, is inclined to close the contempt proceedings.

¶47

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as not surviving.

¶48

At this stage, learned advocate for the complainant stated that the compensation may be directed to be paid within a specified time. The compensation shall be assessed and paid within three months.

¶49

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶51

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri Paramesh Kumar B P v. Sri. Tushar Girinath, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Paramesh Kumar B P v. Sri. Tushar Girinath, 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.G.Shashidhar Vs the Commissioner

Indian Public School Vs State of Karnataka

Nagarajappa Vs Basamma

Sri. Muni Krishna Vs Sri. Shreyas

Sri Javarashetty Vs Smt Venkatamma

Smt Gulabi Shedthi Vs Sri Rishan T