Sri Govindaiah Vs Smt Arundati

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHERE IN HE PRAYS TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR HAVING WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDER/DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.2596/2023 (KLR-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 3.2.2023 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

This contempt proceedings is initiated by the complainant

¶29

against the accused for disobedience of the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2596/2023(KLR-RES), where under the learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition and directed the Tahasildhar to place the application of the petitioners along with his recommendation/report before the Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation with a specific direction to the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk, to place the applications of the petitioners along with reports which were already made way back in the year 1991 before the Committee and the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3670-DB CCC No. 565 of 2023

¶31

Committee shall thereafter consider the applications of the petitioners within two months from the date the applications are placed by the Tahsildhar. Since the same was not complied, this contempt proceedings are filed.

¶32

Whereas, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State filed the counter affidavit dated 27.08.2024 of Amruth Atresh H.R., Tahasildhar, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District, in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein at para 3, he has stated that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, he has verified all the documents maintained in their office, which clearly shows that the application made by the complainant in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.246, measuring to an extent of 0.27 guntas land, situated at T. Begur village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District is a Gomal land and as per Section 97(1) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, for every, there shall be reserve of 12 hectares of gomal land in each village and since the availability of gomal land is insufficient in the said village, the application of the complainant is treated as ineligible application and he has forwarded the ineligible application to

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:3670-DB CCC No. 565 of 2023

¶35

the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District as per amended Rule 108(CCC) 3 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District passed an order 21.08.2024 rejecting the application of the complainant. Accordingly, an endorsement dated 26.08.2024

¶36

has been issued by the Tahasildar, Nelamangala.

¶37

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid compliance affidavit filed by the respondent/accused, the contempt proceedings do not survive for consideration and accordingly, the contempt proceeding are hereby dropped .

¶38

(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

¶39

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶40

MN

¶41

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Sri Govindaiah v. Smt Arundati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Govindaiah v. Smt Arundati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Thanush Ispat Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Gireesh Achar Vs Mr. P Subramanyam IFS

Sri B R Pathi Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas

Sri. a. M. Mahadevappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashwatha Ramegowda Vs State of Karnataka

R Lokanatha Vs Sri. Anil Yadav