Disposed

Sri Krishnappa v. K Rakesh Kumar, the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024CCC/825/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an interim order protecting complainants' possession of lands pending a writ petition. Counsel for complainants sought to withdraw the proceedings; the court dropped the contempt petition and directed filing of a withdrawal memo.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dropped; complainants permitted to withdraw with direction to file memo.

Sri Krishnappa Vs K Rakesh Kumar, the Deputy Commissioner — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44719-DB CCC No. 825 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 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. 825 OF 2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED 75 YEARS

¶11

SRI GOWDAIAH S/O RAMANNA GOWDA AGED 65 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI GANGADHARA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED 60 YEARS

¶14

SRI RAJANNA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED 55 YEARS

¶15

SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED 52 YEARS

¶16

SRI GANGADHARA S/O THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS

¶17

SRI RAJANNA S/O SIDDALINGAIAH

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44719-DB CCC No. 825 of 2022

¶19

AGED 44 YEARS

¶20

SRI SDDALINGAIAH S/O SUNKAIAH AGED 70 YEARS

¶21

SMT SAKAMMA W/O SANJEEVAIAH AGED 65 YEARS

¶22

SRI KESHAVAMURTHY S/O LATE BAGEGOWDA AGED 43 YEARS

¶23

SMT JAYAMMA W/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED 67 YEARS

¶24

SRI HANUMANTHAIAH S/O LATE CHALUVAIAH AGED 48 YEARS

¶25

SMT YESHODAMMA W/O LATE SUNKEGOWDA AGED 56 YEARS

¶26

SRI SIDDALINGAIAH S/O LATE SEEGALAIAH AGED 70 YEARS HOSARANGAIHNAPALYA VILLAGE BIDANAGERE HOBLI GOTTIGERE DAKALE KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130

¶27

SRI KEMPANNA S/O RAMANNA AGED 55 YEARS

¶28

SRI KEMPANNA S/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED 68 YEARS

¶29

SRI NANJUNDAIAH

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44719-DB CCC No. 825 of 2022

¶31

S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED 45 YEARS

¶32

1. SRI KEMPANNA S/O BUDDAIAH AGED 75 YEARS

¶33

SRI C K MANJUNATH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED 45 YEARS

¶34

COMPLAINANT NO.1 TO 13, 15 TO 19 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKAKALYA VILLAGE THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 582 131

¶35

SRI GANGAIAH S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED 65 YEARS AJJEGOWDANAPALYA KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130

¶36

…COMPLAINANTS

¶37

(BY MS. SHILPA S.P AND SRI. B.N SHIVANNA, ADVOCATES)

¶38

AND:

¶39

K RAKESH KUMAR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶40

SRINIVAS PRASAD B.G THE TAHASILDAR MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 130.

¶41

SRI U.B KRISHNA KUMAR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44719-DB CCC No. 825 of 2022

¶43

RAMANAGARA - 562 159

¶44

RAVI B THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MAGADI CIRCLE POLICE STATION MAGADI -562 130

¶45

KUMAR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUDUR POLICE STATION, KUDUR, MAGADI TALUK-562 130.

¶46

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶47

…ACCUSED

¶48

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H, GOV.ADVOCATE)

¶49

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2(b) R/W 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.6628/2022 DATED 31.03.2022 AND PUNISH THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶50

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

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶52

and

¶53

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶54

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44719-DB CCC No. 825 of 2022

¶55

ORAL ORDER

¶56

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶57

This contempt proceeding is initiated under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6628/2022 dated 31.03.2022 VIDE Annexure – A, wherein respondent No.4Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.6-Tahsildar were directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands which were the subject matter of the said writ petition without following due process of law.

¶58

Learned counsel for the complainants, namely, Sri B.N. Shivanna, is on record and is represented by learned counsel, namely, Ms. Shilpa S.P., who submits that she wants to secure specific instructions from the complainants to withdraw the present contempt proceedings. This submission made by the learned counsel for the complainants is taken on record.

¶59

Consequently, the contempt petition is hereby dropped.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:44719-DB CCC No. 825 of 2022

¶62

However, learned counsel for the complainants is directed

¶63

to file a memo seeking to withdraw the contempt petition.

¶64

Sd/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶67

KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri Krishnappa v. K Rakesh Kumar, the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnappa v. K Rakesh Kumar, the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nataraj Puranik Vs Smt Rohini Sindhuri

Gangadhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Bude Sab Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyamma Vs Sri Nagaraju

Smt Manohari Bhaskar Vs Sri.Sudhakar

V.Ashok Babu Vs Tushar Giri Nath