Dismissed

Mohankumar v. B a Jagadish

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024CCC/874/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a civil contempt petition initiated against government officials for alleged non-compliance with a land acquisition order. The court held that proceedings were barred by the one-year limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition filed against the accused persons was dismissed being hit by the limitation bar under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Mohankumar Vs B a Jagadish — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12087-DB CCC No. 874 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND 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

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 874 OF 2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MOHANKUMAR, S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O SOORANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.

¶12

…COMPLAINANT

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA.S, ADVOCATE FOR

¶14

SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

B.A. JAGADISH, S/O ANNAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ACQUISITION OFFICER, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.

¶18

C.S. MANJU, S/O SINGRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12087-DB CCC No. 874 of 2022

¶20

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.

¶21

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

¶22

…ACCUSED

¶23

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR A1 TO A3)

¶24

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR HAVING DISOBEYED / VIOLATED THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.1988/2014 (LA-RES) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED PERSONS.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This contempt petition is initiated by the complainant for the willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1988/2014 (LA-RES) dated 12.04.2021. Whereas, the operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Para No.5 states that, 'In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to pass an award under the RFCTLARR Act in respect of the said land acquired from the petitioners in accordance with law and as per the provisions of

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12087-DB CCC No. 874 of 2022

¶29

the RFCTLARR Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order if the said award has not been already passed as on 01.01.2014. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands of'.

¶30

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent/accused Nos.1 to 3 would vehemently contends that this contempt proceedings is not maintainable on the ground of delay, since the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2021, this contempt proceedings was initiated on 19.09.2022 i.e., after lapse of one year five months. Hence, the same is hit by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶31

He alternatively contends that the respondents have complied the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly prays to dismiss the contempt proceedings.

¶32

4 . Per contra , learned counsel for the complainant submits that the delay in initiating this contempt is neither intentional nor deliberate and only for bona fide reason. As such, the delay may be condoned.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12087-DB CCC No. 874 of 2022

¶34

He further submits that the respondents failed to comply the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as such they may be punished under the provisions of 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶35

Having heard both the learned counsels for the parties, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads thus:

¶36

20. Limitation for actions for contempt — No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

¶37

On careful perusal of the above provision, it is

¶38

manifestly clear that the contempt proceedings cannot be initiated after lapse of 1 year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

¶39

As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this contempt petition is filed after lapse of one year five months, the same cannot be prosecuted on the ground of delay.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:12087-DB CCC No. 874 of 2022

¶42

Keeping in view the specific provision of Section 20

¶43

of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is deem it appropriate that this contempt petition is hereby dismissed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Mohankumar v. B a Jagadish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohankumar v. B a Jagadish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.

Sri Lakshmikar Reddy Vs Sri Anil Kumar Arolikar

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

Toyo Engineering India Private Limited Vs Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited