Sri Lingaiah @ Ningaiah Vs Srinivas Prasad B G — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Lingaiah @ Ningaiah Vs Srinivas Prasad B G — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No action taken against the accused; the civil contempt proceeding was dropped as disobedience to the Single Judge's order dated 02.09.2021 was held not to arise.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent/accused committed wilful disobedience of the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15914/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR), warranting suitable action under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for its implementation.

Court's answer

Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the complainant, Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the additional affidavit dated 28.01.2025 filed by respondent/accused No.1 with Annexures-R1 and R2, disobedience to the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not arise.

Ratio / Principle

The contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dropped.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition No.734 of 2022 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by Sri Lingaiah @ Ningaiah seeking implementation of the learned Single Judge's order dated 02.09.2021 in W.P.No.15914/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR), whereby mandamus was issued to Respondent No.1 (Thasildar, Magadi Taluk) to issue saguvali chit within two months. During hearing, the Court took into account counsel's submissions, Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the additional affidavit dated 28.01.2025 filed by respondent/accused No.1 with Annexures-R1 and R2, and held that disobedience to the Single Judge's order does not arise. The contempt proceeding accordingly did not survive and was dropped (order dated 05.02.2025; Per Hon'ble Mr Justice K.Somashekar, bench including Hon'ble Mr Justice Venkatesh Naik T). Background noted in the order: respondent's name entered in RTC to an extent of 1 acre after W.P.No.36108/1999 was allowed; the Land Grant Committee recommended grant of only 25 guntas; dispute pending before the Assistant Commissioner in Case No.LND.CR.131/MA/2022-23; and the State's writ appeal W.A.No.1728/2024 against the writ order is pending.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5137-DB CCC No. 734 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.734 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SRI LINGAIAH @ NINGAIAH S/O. LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH @ KULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT ANEKEMPAYYANADODDI VILLAGE MANCHANABELE POST, MADABAL HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 128.

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI VINAYAKA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRINIVAS PRASAD B. G. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS THASILDAR MAGADI TALUK MAGADI

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

…ACCUSED

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., A.G.A.)

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN SHE PRAYS TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HIS WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2021 PASSED IN WP NO.15914/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5137-DB CCC No. 734 of 2022

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 proceeding has been initiated by the complainant against the respondent/accused seeking implementation of the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15914/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) vide Annexure-A.

Sri. Vijay Kumar K., learned counsel appearing for the complainant is present before the Court physically and is seeking for implementation of the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15914/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) vide Annexure-A.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent/accused No.1 is present before the Court physically and referring to the documents of the Revenue Authorities, submits that the respondent has filed Form No.50 for grant of land on the basis of the unauthorised occupation on

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5137-DB CCC No. 734 of 2022

05.09.1991. The Assistant Commissioner has recommended

the very same land for grant of siteless/houseless persons on the basis of request made by the villagers. The respondent has approached this Hon'ble Court questioning the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner, in WP.No.36108/1999 and the same is allowed. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the respondent to hear him and verified the documents produced by the respondent and entered the name of the respondent in RTC to an extent of 1 acre. However, after due verification, the Tahsildar, Magadi Taluk, has submitted a report to the Land Grant Committee. The Land Grant Committee has recommended only 25 guntas for grant, since he was the occupant of only 25 guntas. Hence, the Tahsildar has raised a dispute before the Assistant Commissioner in Case No.LND.CR.131/MA/2022-23, which is pending till today. The same was not brought to the notice of this Court.

But, in paragraph No.5 of the order dated 02.09.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15914/2021, mandamus is issued directing respondent No.1 to issue saguvali chit within two months.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5137-DB CCC No. 734 of 2022

In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the complainant submits that against the order passed by learned Single Judge, the writ appeal is preferred by the State in W.A.No.1728/2024, which is pending for consideration.

Keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and also the additional affidavit dated 28.01.2025 filed by respondent/accused No.1 along with Annexures-R1 and R2, it is deemed appropriate that disobedience to the order passed by learned Single Judge does not arise.

Accordingly, this contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration. Consequently, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped .

Sd/-

(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

PHM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4