Disposed

Sri Lakshmikar Reddy v. Sri Anil Kumar Arolikar

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024CCC/1144/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of a Single Judge order directing the Tahsildar to consider representations for mutation of revenue records. The State produced an endorsement declining mutation since the complainants had relinquished their claim under a compromise decree in O.S.No.1127/2016. Finding no surviving dispute, the Court dropped the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

None; contempt proceedings dropped.

Sri Lakshmikar Reddy Vs Sri Anil Kumar Arolikar — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12088-DB CCC No. 1144 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶8

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1144 OF 2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. LAKSHMIKAR REDDY, S/O LATE H.N. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. M.REKHA, W/O SRI.M.L.REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶12

SR.I RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O BALAVENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. M.SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O M.N.REDDY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. NALLAM SURESH, S/O C. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. M.SAVITHRAMMA, W/O M.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶17

ALL ARE RESIDING AT 8-2/703/UJ3, VIJAYA VILAS ROAD NO.12,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:12088-DB CCC No. 1144 of 2022

¶20

BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD,

¶21

REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI G.BYRAPPA, S/O LATE GANGABYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.359 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 011.

¶22

…COMPLAINANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MURALI B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SRI. ANIL KUMAR AROLIKAR, TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, (YELAHANKA), BENGALURU DISTRICT -560 064.

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶27

…ACCUSED

¶28

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR A1 & A2)

¶29

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SECURE THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND INITIATE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 FOR VIOLATING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN ORDER DATED 28.6.2021 PASSED IN WP NO.10865/2020 (KLR-RES) IS LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12088-DB CCC No. 1144 of 2022

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This contempt proceeding has initiated by the

¶34

complainant for the willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.10865/2020 dated 28.06.2021 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioners to submit a representation before the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, i.e., respondent No.1 herein. Further, twelve weeks' time was granted to respondent/accused No.1 to consider such representation. Since, the respondent No.1 failed to comply the order inspite of submitting the representation by the complainant, the complainant initiated this contempt petition.

¶35

Today, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is present before the Court physically has submitted a memo, which reads thus:

¶36

”In the above case the Hon'ble Single Judge has passed an order in W.P.No.10865/2020 (KLR/RES) on 28.06.2021, directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and to taken necessary action strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that the complainants made

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12088-DB CCC No. 1144 of 2022

¶38

a representation dated 19.08.2021, in a response to the said representation the Office of the Tahasildar issued a notice seeking for further documents. Acting upon the same, GPA Holder for the petitioner/complainants submitted all relevant documents on 02.01.2024.

¶39

After considering all the relevant records made available to the accused, it was observed that there was a compromise decree between the complainants and the litigants in O.S.No.1127/2016 wherein, the complainants have relinquished their claim with respect to the above properties in question.

¶40

It is submitted that taking the above facts and circumstances into consideration and Endorsement came to be issued on 23.01.2024 to the complainants wherein, it was stated that the claim of the complainants to change the revenue records in their name would not be possible as they already entered into the compromise decree and relinquished the claim. The copy of the endorsement dated 19.01.2024 is herewith produced and marked as Document-1.”

¶41

3. Memo is placed on record.

¶42

4. Since, the dispute between the complainants and

¶43

the litigants in O.S.No.1127/2016 ended with compromise and complainants are relinquished their claim in respect of the

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12088-DB CCC No. 1144 of 2022

¶45

property-in-question, this contempt does not survive for further consideration.

¶46

Accordingly, this contempt proceedings is hereby

dropped .

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Lakshmikar Reddy v. Sri Anil Kumar Arolikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmikar Reddy v. Sri Anil Kumar Arolikar

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. Suresh Mallappa Tangolli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B. Gayathri Vs the State of Karnataka

S Devaraj Vs Hosmat Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.

Mohankumar Vs B a Jagadish

State of Karnataka Vs Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka Society

Toyo Engineering India Private Limited Vs Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited