Disposed¶42

S R Chandrashekar v. Durgashree N

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2025CCC/133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC 133/2025; NC 2025:KHC:6580-DB; civil contempt; Article 215 Constitution; Sections 11, 12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; disobedience of Single Judge order dated 10.01.2024 in WP 18931/2023 (LR); Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Appeal 783/2013 order 22.03.2019; Assistant Commissioner order 16.03.2009 LRF:SR(DB):368/2007-08; Sections 79-A, 79-B Karnataka Land Reforms Act; Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020; restoration of revenue entries; no time limit for compliance; eight weeks to comply; contempt not entertained; disposed; N.V. Anjaria Chief Justice; M.I. Arun.

What did the court decide?

No punitive relief; contempt petition not entertained. Authorities directed to comply with the Single Judge's directions within eight weeks of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant may file a fresh contempt petition for the non-compliance.

S R Chandrashekar Vs Durgashree N — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused (Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura) committed contempt, and specifically willful contempt, in disobeying the directions contained in the learned Single Judge's order dated 10.01.2024 in WP No.18931/2023 (LR).

¶29

Court's answer

Since the learned Single Judge's directions prescribed no time limit for compliance or for the competent authority to act, it cannot be said at this stage that any of the respondents committed contempt, much less willful contempt, in not complying with the directions.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Single Judge's directions shall be complied with within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the authority concerned, failing which the complainant will have the cause of action to file a contempt petition in respect of the non-compliance.

¶38

Key takeaways

With the aforesaid observations, the present contempt petition is not entertained and is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt petition (CCC No.133/2025) under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura, of the learned Single Judge's order dated 10.01.2024 in WP No.18931/2023 (LR), whereby the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order dated 22.03.2019 in Appeal No.783/2013 and the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 16.03.2009 in case No.LRF:SR(DB):368/2007-08 were quashed, the matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to decide afresh in light of Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020 to Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and altered revenue entries were to be restored. Held (per Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria, with Justice M.I. Arun): as the Single Judge had fixed no time limit for compliance, no contempt — much less willful contempt — was made out at this stage; compliance was directed within eight weeks of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant may file a fresh contempt petition; the petition was not entertained and was disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:6580-DB CCC No. 133 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S R CHANDRASHEKAR S/O RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT SONDEKUPPA DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 123

¶10

…COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RAMU VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI. SUNIL S.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

DURGASHREE N. AGED ABOUT MAJOR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT DODDABALAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 …ACCUSED

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:6580-DB CCC No. 133 of 2025

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶20

...PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)

¶22

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN WP NO.18931/2023 (LR) DATED 10.01.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND FURTHER ENFORCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:6580-DB CCC No. 133 of 2025

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

Following directions in the order of learned Single Judge dated 10.01.2024 while disposing of the writ petition are brought under contempt jurisdiction for their alleged breach,

¶30

"(i) The impugned orders dated 22^nd March, 2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.783/2013 and order dated 16^th March, 2009 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner in case No.LRF:SR(DB):368/2007-08 are hereby quashed and set-aside;

¶31

(ii) The matter is remitted back to the respondentAssistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner including the consequences of the subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020;

¶32

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 06^th February, 2024, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner;

¶33

(iv) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 16^th March, 2009, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner."

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:6580-DB CCC No. 133 of 2025

¶36

Learned advocate Mr. Ramu Venkatesh who appeared through video conferencing for learned advocate Mr. Sunil S. Narayan for the complainant submitted that the directions are not complied with by the authority and other direction in the nature of restoration of entries etc. is also not complied with.

¶37

A bare perusal of the directions go to show that learned Single Judge has not prescribed any time limit for the purpose of compliance and for the competent authority to act according to the directions. In that view, it is not possible to put at this stage any of the respondents have committed contempt, much less a willful contempt in not complying with the directions, for, time limit is not set for the authorities in that regard.

¶38

At the same time, since it will be trite that the directions of the court are complied with, it is provided that the directions shall be complied with within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the authority concerned failing which, the complainant will have the cause of action to file contempt petition in respect of non-compliance.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:6580-DB CCC No. 133 of 2025

¶41

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present contempt

¶42

petition is not entertained. It is accordingly disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶45