Sri. a. M. Mahadevappa Vs State of Karnataka — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. a. M. Mahadevappa Vs State of Karnataka — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceedings dropped without punishing the accused; liberty reserved to the complainant to pursue the matter if there is no absolute compliance by the State/Authorities; no compensation awarded for the demolished property.

Issue for consideration

Whether accused Nos. 2 to 4 committed willful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No.1999/2018 dated 25.2.2022 (re-registration of khata in respect of the property to an extent of 10.00 ankanas), warranting initiation of contempt proceedings, punishment, and compensation for construction of the demolished property.

Court's answer

In view of the submissions made (including the compliance affidavit dated 03.08.2024 indicating registration of khatha, Annexure-R2) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah & Ors., 2024 SCC Online 1764 (court's power in contempt being discretionary, and possibility of accepting a defence of impossibility to comply), the contempt proceedings do not survive for consideration and are hereby dropped.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the complainant to pursue the matter if there is no absolute compliance by the State/Authorities.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition (CCC No. 230 of 2023) under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience by accused Nos. 2 to 4 (State of Karnataka, Assistant Commissioner, Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath and Panchayath Development Officer, Chamarajanagar) of the direction dated 25.02.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1999/2018 (LB-RES) entitling the complainants to re-registering of khata in respect of their property to an extent of 10.00 ankanas. The Additional Government Advocate filed a compliance affidavit dated 03.08.2024 showing that, pursuant to the then Executive Officer's order dated 28.10.2010 and after verification of encroachment/holding records, the khatha of the complainant's property had been registered in the panchayath revenue records (Annexure-R2). Relying on S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah & Ors., 2024 SCC Online 1764 (para 52) — that the court's power in contempt is discretionary and a defence of impossibility to comply may preclude punishment — the Division Bench (K. Somashekar and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.; order per K. Somashekar, J.) held that the contempt proceedings did not survive for consideration and dropped them, granting the complainant liberty to pursue the matter if there is no absolute compliance by the State/Authorities. No compensation was awarded.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3954-DB CCC No. 230 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.230 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

SRI A. M. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

SRI A. M. MALLU S/O. LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT ALURU VILLAGE CHANDKVADI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.

…COMPLAINANTS

(BY SMT. BRINDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHESH M. ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

MR. GIRISH BADDAVADE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571 313.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3954-DB CCC No. 230 of 2023

MR. PREM KUMAR

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571 313

SMT. SEEMA THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ALUR VILLAGE, CHANDAKVADI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313

…ACCUSED

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, A.G.A., FOR A-1; SRI K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR A-4; A-2 AND A-3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4 AND PUNISH THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.1999/2018 DATED 25.2.2022 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEMOLISHED PROPERTY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

and

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

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

This contempt proceedings has been initiated by the complainant against the accused for dis-obedience of the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3954-DB CCC No. 230 of 2023

W.P.No.1999/2018(LB-RES), wherein the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners are entitled for re-registering of khata in respect of property in question to an extent of 10.00 ankanas of land. However, since the said order has not been complied, the present contempt is filed.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate Smt. Namitha Mahesh, for respondent No.1-State, who is present before the files the compliance affidavit dated 03.08.2024 and at para 3, it is stated that after verification of the records pertaining to the encroachments and actual holdings, the then Executive Officer of the Panchayath had passed an order dated 28.10.2010 and accordingly, steps to register the khatha have been taken and that the extent of land that has been described in the scheduled to the sale deed in which the complainant had acquired the property has been considered, measured and accordingly, the khatha of the property owned by the complainant has been registered in the revenue records of the panchayath, copy of which is marked as Annexure-R2.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO V. M. LINGAMAIAH & Ors. reported in 2024

SCC Online 1764 at paragraph 52 has made an observation

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3954-DB CCC No. 230 of 2023

specifically stating that, 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.

Accordingly, in view of the submissions made and in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, the contempt proceedings does not survive for consideration and the contempt proceedings are hereby dropped . Liberty is granted to the complainant to pursue, if there is no absolute compliance by the State/Authorities.

Sd/-

(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

MN

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4