Civil contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a writ order on land acquisition compensation for kharab land. The respondent filed a compliance affidavit with annexures; the court found no grounds to continue the contempt and closed the petition, granting liberty to the complainant in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:41822-DB CCC No. 816 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 816 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI M R RAVI S/O MARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT RAYASUNDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 563478.
…COMPLAINANT
Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. P MAHESHA - ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI MALLIKARJUNA THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-209 NO.37, BYRAVESHWARA COMPLEX MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-563 487.
…ACCUSED
(BY SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI – ADVOCATE)
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, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND TO PUNISH FOR WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 IN W.P. NO.12546/2017 (LA-RES).
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt petition is initiated under Sections 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India for willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12546/2017(LA-RES) dated 30.11.2021. The learned single Judge had directed the respondent therein to ascertain as to whether the land, which was treated as kharab land, fell under clauses (a) or (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 and if it was land which was covered under clause(a), the petitioner shall be granted appropriate compensation.
respondent/accused is present before the Court physically.
She has filed detailed affidavit along with Annexures in compliance of the order passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. The affidavit consists in all paragraphs 1 to 18.
NC: 2024:KHC:41822-DB CCC No. 816 of 2022
S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1764 wherein it is observed as under:
52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice.
Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra and so also, the ingredients of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act inclusive of Article 215 of Constitution of India as well as the affidavit filed by the counsel for the respondent/accused, it is deemed appropriate to state that
there is no consequence to persuade the contempt petition
in further. Consequently, the contempt petition is hereby closed.
However, keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the complainant, liberty is granted in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE
Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
DKB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent wilfully disobeyed the writ order dated 30.11.2021 directing determination of kharab land status and grant of compensation.
Whether contempt proceedings should proceed given the compliance affidavit filed by the respondent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Tirupati Rao vs. LingamaiahRelied on¶5
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M R Ravi
Mallikarjuna
K. Somashekar
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
