Dismissed¶39

Dr v. M Kerudi v Ingalgi F I

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2025CCC/100196/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

No contempt arises on the facts of the case; the alleged misguidance of the Court during revival proceedings and the non-issue of the Occupancy Certificate do not constitute contempt.

Dr v M Kerudi Vs Ingalgi F I — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt arises from the allegation that the 1st respondent – Commissioner, CMC, Ranebennur intentionally and deliberately misguided the High Court during revival proceedings and declined to issue the Occupancy Certificate in Form No.9. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

No contempt arises on the facts of the case; the alleged misguidance of the Court during revival proceedings and the non-issue of the Occupancy Certificate do not constitute contempt.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the directions already issued by the Co-ordinate Bench in CCC No.100203/2024, the complainants may have a fresh cause of action to question the action of the Commissioner in not issuing the occupancy certificate, but that does not give rise to contempt.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), CCC No.100196 of 2025, decided 26-06-2025; oral order per R. Devdas J. (with K V Aravind J.). Civil contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution by Dr. V.M. Kerudi (party-in-person) and Shivayogi V. Kerudi against Ingalgi F.I., Commissioner, CMC Ranebennur (accused/R1) and R.H. Bhagavan, Tahsildar (proforma respondent/R2), alleging that the Commissioner intentionally and deliberately misguided the High Court during revival proceedings of their earlier contempt petition CCC No.100203/2024 and declined to issue Occupancy Certificate in Form No.9 (prayer also sought a writ of mandamus for occupancy certificate under Form 9(2-5) KLR Rules 1966 / KLR Act 1964 Section 164(2), S.159 read with Rule 94/A). The Court noted that in CCC No.100203/2024 the Co-ordinate Bench had held there was no specific direction in the writ petition or writ appeal for issuance of Occupancy Certificate in Form No.9, had disposed of that contempt petition reserving liberty to the complainants to apply afresh to the jurisdictional Tahsildar/Commissioner (decision to be communicated independently within six weeks), and had barred seeking revival of the complaint. Since the Commissioner has now rejected the complainants' application, they may have a fresh cause of action to question that action under appropriate law; however, no contempt arises on these facts. Contempt petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8057-DB CCC No. 100196 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100196 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

DR. V.M. KERUDI, RTD. DOCTOR, AGE: 82 YEARS, ASHOK CIRCLE, EASTERN EXTENSION, KERUDI COMPLEX, RANEBENNUR-581115, HAVERI MO:8861356905 PARTY-IN-PERSON (HAVERI DIST.) EMAIL: [email protected]

¶11

SHIVAYOGI V.KERUDI, AGE: 49 YEARS,

¶12

…COMPLAINANTS

¶13

(BY DR. SRI V.M. KERUDI, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

INGALGI F.I. CMC COMMISSIONER, STATION ROAD, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DIST., KARNATAKA.

¶17

…ACCUSED

¶18

R.H. BHAGAVAN, TAHSILDAR, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, P.B. ROAD, RANEBENNUR-581115, HAVERI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA, THOUGH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, AG OFFICE.

¶19

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR A2/R2)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8057-DB CCC No. 100196 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO, (A) WHEREFORE IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT HIGH COURT TO ALLOW THIS CONTEMPT WHERE R1 CMC, COMMISSIONER, INTENTIONALLY, DELIBERATELY, MISGUIDED HIGH COURT DURING REVIVAL PROCEEDINGS STATING MISUNDERSTANDING OR OWN UNDERSTANDING OF THE COURT ORDER TWICE DATED 06.11.2024 AND DATED 29.04.2025 WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE DEFENCE. (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DIRECTING TO ISSUE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE TO PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT UNDER FORM 9(2-5) OF KLR RULES 1966/KLR ACT 1964 SECTION 164(2) S 159 READ WITH RULE 94/A FOLLOWING ON TERMS OF APPLICABLE LAW AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶29

The petitioner – party-in-person who had earlier filed a contempt petition in CCC No.100203/2024 has once again filed this contempt petition alleging that the 1^st respondent – Commissioner, CMC, Ranebennur has intentionally, deliberately misguided during revival proceedings and has declined to issue occupancy certificate in Form No.9.

¶30

However, we find from the orders passed in CCC No.100203/2024 that the Co-ordinate Bench has held that

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8057-DB CCC No. 100196 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

there is no specific direction in the writ petition or writ appeal for issuance of Occupancy Certificate in Form No.9. Therefore, while disposing of the contempt petition, liberty was reserved to the complainants to submit applications with the jurisdictional Tahsildar and/or the Commissioner for Occupancy Certificate in Form No.9 under KLR Act/KLR Rules. It was also directed that if the complainants have any cause against the consideration of such application or the non-consideration thereof, they must avail the remedy under the appropriate law, but cannot seek revival of the complaint. Liberty was reserved to the complainants to make such application within four weeks and the jurisdictional Tahsildar and Commissioner were directed to communicate their decision independently within a period of six weeks from the date when the application is filed by the complainants.

¶34

Now it is the grievance of the complainants that the Commissioner has rejected the application and has not issued the occupancy certificate. Therefore, having regard to the directions already issued by the Co-ordinate Bench, the complainants may have a fresh cause of action to question the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8057-DB CCC No. 100196 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

action of the Commissioner in not issuing occupancy certificate. However, no contempt would arise having regard to the facts of the case narrated hereinabove.

¶39

Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶41

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶42

CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Dr v. M Kerudi v Ingalgi F I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr v. M Kerudi v Ingalgi F I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Gadam Gopal Krishna Vs the Commissioner

Honnurappa S/O Kollarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh S/O. Yallappa Kembhavi Vs Sri Shashidhar Channappagoudar

Shri K Nagappa S/O Late Ramaiah Vs the Government of Karnataka

The Reginoal Manager Vs Kallappa @ Kalmesh S/O Basappa Havadi

Shri. Kallappa @ Kalmesh S/O Basappa Havadi Vs M/S Ashoka Buildco Ltd.