Disposed

O.Gopalakrishna Bhat v. Dr.Rajendra Kumar K.V.

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024CCC/591/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant sought contempt proceedings against the Deputy Commissioner for not complying with a single-judge order in a land grant matter. On the AGA's report and submissions, the court dropped the contempt petition and directed the respondent authority to dispose of the issues within six weeks and collect 300 times the land revenue as ordered by the Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dropped; respondent directed to dispose of the issues within six weeks and collect 300 times the land revenue as ordered by the Division Bench; complainant discharged.

O.Gopalakrishna Bhat Vs Dr.Rajendra Kumar K.V. — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10685-DB CCC No. 591 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

CCC NO. 591 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

O. GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT S/O LATE O. RAMA BHAT AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT ODIYOOR HOUSE AND POST KARAPADY VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574279.

¶12

…COMPLAINANT

¶13

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O - ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

DR.RAJENDRA KUMAR K.V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D. K. MANGALURU-575001.

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶18

…ACCUSED

¶19

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE – AGA)

¶20

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND PUNISH HIM APPROPRIATELY FOR HAVING COMMITTED THE CONTEMPT OF

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10685-DB CCC No. 591 of 2022

¶22

COURT BY DISOBEYING/NOT COMPLYING THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2021 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.10482/2019 (KLR-RES).

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Sri Shivarama Bhat O, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Sudev Hegde, learned AGA for respondents are present.

¶26

Learned AGA submits that Accused No.1 being

¶27

the Deputy Commissioner has filed a counter affidavit. Para No.6 of the said affidavit states that the complainant herein refused to accept notice, for which mahazar has been drawn with the local residents as witnesses.

¶28

Further learned AGA has filed a report dated

¶29

11.03.2024, wherein the report indicates

¶30

“The Appeal is allowed the matter is remitted back to Deputy Commissioner with a direction to fix the market value of the land if the said land have been assessed then the market value shall be charged as

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10685-DB CCC No. 591 of 2022

¶32

occupancy price for permanent grant should be 200 times the land revenue and if such land have not been assessed the revenue, the Deputy Commissioner should obtain the relevant statistics from the sub-registrar office as to the existing market value at the time of executing the lease agreement based on sale statistics then on that basis compute the market value. The learned Deputy Commissioner shall also afford an opportunity to the appellant and dispose of the matter.”

¶33

Further, WA No.5103/2004 dated 26.10.2007

¶34

indicates as

¶35

“The tenor of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court is that market value at the rate of 300 times the land revenue assessed on the land as was prevailing on the date of grant had to be collected. In fact, the Division Bench upheld the order of the Tribunal wherein the market value had to be collected by referring to the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal which had held that the amount to be collected was 200 times the land revenue payable. But as a submission was made by the petitioner herein agreeing to pay the amount at 300 times the land revenue payable, the Division Bench directed the Deputy Commissioner to quantify the market value on that basis.”

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10685-DB CCC No. 591 of 2022

¶37

Keeping in view the report and submissions

¶38

made by the learned counsel for the complainant and

¶39

learned AGA, this contempt petition is hereby dropped.

¶40

Respondent authority is directed to dispose

¶41

these issues on or before six weeks and also collect 300

¶42

times of the land revenue as ordered by the Division Bench.

¶43

Complainant is present and discharged.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

O.Gopalakrishna Bhat v. Dr.Rajendra Kumar K.V.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.Gopalakrishna Bhat v. Dr.Rajendra Kumar K.V.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jagadeesha G R Vs the Principal Chief Conservator

Mr K P Venkatesh Vs Mr Harish v v

Sri S M Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gayathri Vs Sri Pravin Kumar

Sri Ramachandra Vs T S Subramanya

Smt. Gayathri Vs Sri. Amrithlal Bansali