Disposed

Sri N. Venkatesh v. Sri Gururaj

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024CCC/613/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainants alleged non-compliance of a writ direction requiring the Tahsildar to consider their land representations via online registration. The Tahsildar filed a compliance affidavit showing registration under the Mojini system, recommendations under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, and endorsements communicating refusal on merits. The court held directions complied with.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri N. Venkatesh Vs Sri Gururaj — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33476-DB CCC No. 613 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CCC NO. 613 OF 2023 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI N. VENKATESH S/O SRI NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶10

SRI N MUNIRAJU S/O SRI NAGARAJU,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT NO 07, NALLAKKANADODDI,

¶13

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

TARALU POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT 560061

¶16

(BY SRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

…COMPLAINANTS

¶19

SRI DAYANAND K.A. (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.09.2023)

¶20

SRI RAGHUNANDAN (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 15.09.2023)

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33476-DB CCC No. 613 of 2023

¶22

SRI GURURAJ TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU 560009

¶23

SRI MANJUNATHA THAVANE (DELETED VIDE ORDER

¶24

DATED 15.09.2023)

¶25

SRI SACHIN (DELETED VIDE ORDER

¶26

DATED 15.09.2023)

¶27

....ACCUSED

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001

¶29

…PRO FORMA RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR A3; VCO DATED 15.09.2023, A1, A2, A4 AND A5 ARE DELETED)

¶31

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 AND RULE 5 OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES , 1972, BY THE COMPLAINANTS, WHEREIN THEY PRAY THAT THE HONB’LE COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-A DATED 10.3.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.2789/2023 (KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 10.03.2023.

¶32

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

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33476-DB CCC No. 613 of 2023

¶34

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

¶35

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

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

¶38

Following directions were complained of for their

¶39

non-compliance as contained in the order dated 10.03.2023 wherein directions was issued to respondent No.3-the Tahsildar as under,

¶40

“Respondent No.3 is directed to consider representations/applications at Annexures-K and L both dated 17.03.2022 by registering it online in terms of the circular dated 15.10.2022 referred to above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶41

Compliance affidavit is filed in response to the notice

¶42

issued by this Court in which, the Tahsildar has inter alia stated

¶43

thus,

¶44

“It is further submitted that the land in question is within 18 K.M from the Bengaluru Municipal Corporation boundary on this ground it was recommended to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru south Sub-Division for incitation of proceedings under section 108(K) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. It is further submitted that information is also given to complainant by way of an endorsement dated

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:33476-DB CCC No. 613 of 2023

¶47

24.07.2023. It is further submitted that after the recommendation the Assistant Commissioner, incitation notice is issued to the complainant on 31.08.2023.”

¶48

It was stated further that entire process of completion of work has also been communicated to the complainants. It was accordingly submitted that the orders of the Court have been complied with.

¶49

Along with the aforesaid averments in the compliance affidavit, the endorsement dated 24.07.2023 issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluka, Bengaluru is produced on record in which it is stated that under Section 94(a)(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 there is a prohibition against regularization of unauthorized cultivation of lands falling within 18 kms from the boundary of the Bengaluru Municipal Corporation.

¶50

4.1 Another endorsement dated 19.09.2023 issued by the Tahsildar answered the representation of the complainants by stating thus,

¶51

“Accordingly as per Circular No.: RD 101 Bhu Da Aa 2022 dated: 15.10.2022, it will be mandatory to register the pending applications for land or land and for all those received from now on for consolidation, and any other applications shall not be processed without registering in the

¶52

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33476-DB CCC No. 613 of 2023

¶53

system. Disciplinary action will be taken against such officers/employees as per rules if applications are processed under Mojini system” Applicants as per reference(3) have written to their office as per reference (4) requesting to take action actions as ordered by the High Court which is bent on registering in the Mojini system as per government circular” and as per which letter written to your office.”

¶54

In view of the above, the representation of the complainants has been decided. The directions of learned Single Judge could be said to be complied with.

¶55

The proceedings of contempt would not survive and they are accordingly disposed of.

¶56

It is clarified that if the complainants are having any grievance on merits in respect of the stand communicated by the authorities in response to the representation as above, it will be open for the complainants to institute independent proceedings as may be permissible in law, in respect of which however, this Court does not express any opinion on merits.

¶57

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶58

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶59

KPS

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri N. Venkatesh v. Sri Gururaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri N. Venkatesh v. Sri Gururaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jagadish Vs Mr N Jayaram

Dheeraj Kumar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrakanth, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr a H Shuaib Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R R Hiremath Vs Sri Tushar Girinath IAS

Sri. Mathew Thomas Vs the State of Karnataka