Sri Byrappa Vs Sri. Shivaraj

SRI. BYRAPPA S/O. LATE THAMAMNNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT KENDANAHALLI VILLAGE KAIWARA HOBALI CHENNSANDRA POST CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 128

¶14

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE THAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT KENDANAHALLI VILLAGE KAIWARA HOBALI CHENNASANDRA POST CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 128

¶15

…COMPLAINANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M. MUNI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:557-DB CCC No. 691 of 2024

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. SHIVARAJ THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110

¶21

…ACCUSED

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶23

...PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)

¶25

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE CONTEMPT ACT AND TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, ACT 1971, SINCE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2024 IN W.P.NO.10511/2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) AMOUNTS TO CLEAR CONTEMPT OF COURT HENCE THE SAME IS PRAYED TO CONSIDER THE PETITION.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:557-DB CCC No. 691 of 2024

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

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

¶32

By putting forward a case before learned Single Judge that the land bearing Survey No.11/B11/P1, which was a Kushki agricultural land admeasuring 0-19 Guntas situated at Tammenahalli Village, Chennarayapatna Hobli, Devenahalli Taluka, was owned by the petitioners, the prayer was made to direct the respondent-authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioners for carrying out survey sketch, phodi and durast work of the said land.

¶33

Learned Single Judge directed the respondent- Tahsildar to consider the application of the petitioners in that regard as expeditiously possible within the stipulated time.

¶34

It is the above directions which became the subject matter of the present contempt petition for their alleged non-compliance.

¶35

In response to the notice issued by this Court, the compliance affidavit is filed by respondent No.1–the Tahsildar along with which, the copy of the endorsement dated 09.07.2024 is produced. It was stated therein that the authorities proceeded to

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:557-DB CCC No. 691 of 2024

¶38

carryout phodi and durast work, however, the property was found to be in possession of another person named Smt. Shanthamma, the widow of late Ramaiah.

¶39

4.1 The endorsement highlights the aspects which emerged on factual verification in the following words,

¶40

"On the verification of the Grant documents with regard to the above subject, this office had granted the permission through the letter bearing No.LNDCR:189:2022-23 dated 05/10/2023, for the carrying out the Phodi related works at one person request, and thereafter accordingly the file was sent to Assistant Director of Land Records Devanahalli Taluk. The above said had sent a letter bearing No.ADLR/DPR/46/2023-24 dated 06/02/2024, to which one person named Smt. Shanthamma W/o Late Ramaiah had filed here interlocutory application stating that since she is the possession and enjoyment of the property, hence the permission for the Phodi works of the said land must not be granted. Therefore now as both the parties have shown that the they are in possession and enjoyment of the property, now therefore, the dispute is with regard to the ownership of the property between both the parties. Thus the record was sent back with the suggestion that therefore the permission can be given for carrying out the Phodi related works after the spot inspection of the said place be conducted and after verifying of it with the people there as to the fact that who is in possession and enjoyment of the property."

¶41

4.2 It was further recorded in the endorsement that even before

¶42

the order of the High Court, the memorandum of request dated

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:557-DB CCC No. 691 of 2024

¶44

07.12.2022 given by the complainants was verified and it was found that the Assistant Director of Land Records, Devanahalli Taluka, had visited the place with the other officers on 19.06.2024 and spot inspection was carried out in presence of the said Smt. Shanthamma. It was rightly recorded that the dispute deserves to be settled by the parties by approaching the Civil Court.

¶45

In the above facts and circumstances emerging, it is not possible for the Court to conclude that any of the respondents have committed any contempt of court, much less willful contempt so as

¶46

to permit the complainants to maintain the present contempt proceedings against the respondents. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶47

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶49

CR

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri Byrappa v. Sri. Shivaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Byrappa v. Sri. Shivaraj

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

Chamarajapete Nagarikara Okkuta (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Shivanagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Hap Realtors Private Limited Vs Mr Rakesh G

M/S N R Granites Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagalur Taluk Senior Citizens Association Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Swamy Vs the Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority