Commissioner Vs Syed Mazhar

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2022 AND THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2023 PASSED ON I.A NO.2/2023 IN W.P NO.24410/2021 AND BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.

¶31

IN CCC NO. 1055/2022

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SYED MAZHAR S/O LATE SYED ABDUL GAFOOR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O NEAR: BYPASS 1^ST CROSS, NEW MANDLI SHIVAMOGGA - 577 202

¶34

...COMPLAINANT

¶35

(BY SRI BALARAJ K N, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶36

AND:

¶37

K MAYANNA GOWDA COMMISSIONER OF SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION OPP: TO GANDHI PARK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

¶38

...ACCUSED

¶39

(BY SRI A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶40

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53155-DB WA No. 86 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1055 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2022 IN W.P. NO.24410/2021 (LB-RES) AND PUNISH HIM.

¶43

THIS APPEAL AND CCC, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶45

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶48

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24410/2021 (LB-RES). Respondent No.1 [ writ petitioner ] had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the appellant, [Commissioner, Shivamogga City Corporation] to consider his representation dated 06.09.2021 seeking compensation for the land, which was used by the Shivamogga City Corporation for formation of a road.

¶49

The writ petitioner claimed that he was the absolute owner of a vacant site in Survey No.162/2, Block No.24 at Mandli Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk and District. The writ petitioner claimed that he had filed a suit in O.S No.163/1997 before the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Shivamogga, which was decreed and the appellant was

¶50

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53155-DB WA No. 86 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1055 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

restrained from interfering with the said property. However, the writ petitioner claimed that notwithstanding the same, the appellant had proceeded to form a road without paying any compensation.

¶53

The writ petition was allowed in terms of the impugned order. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitioner had acquired title to the subject property in terms of a Gift Deed dated 15.10.2008. The Court also noted the writ petitioner's contention that he was constrained to file a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellant as there was interference with the possession of his property. The suit was decreed. However, notwithstanding the decree passed by the Civil Court, the road was constructed on the writ petitioner's property. The learned Single Judge noted that the writ petitioner had made several applications claiming compensation and the same had culminated in a resolution dated 30.05.2000, whereby it was acknowledged that the writ petitioner was the owner of the site measuring 26 x 70 feet in Survey No.162/2 at Mandli Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk and that a portion of the property had been utilised for making a road.

¶54

It is noted that on 22.04.2022, the learned Single Judge had directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to file a report regarding the progress of the matter and had adjourned the matter after summer vacation. The appellant was not represented on that date and

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53155-DB WA No. 86 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1055 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

therefore, emergent notice was issued to the appellant. It is stated that the writ petition was allowed on the next date of hearing, that is, on 30.06.2022.

¶58

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated, first of all, that the Shivamogga City Corporation has not constructed a road on the writ petitioner's property. He stated that there was a path on the property for several decades and the writ petitioner's right to the same is seriously contested.

¶59

He contended that the appellant had no opportunity to file statement of objections.

¶60

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge had considered the resolution dated 30.05.2020, which had not been disputed.

¶61

We also note that the appellant had filed an application for recall of the impugned order. However, the same was dismissed by an order dated 28.11.2023. The same is also impugned in the present appeal.

¶62

Since it is apparent that the impugned order was passed without the appellant's objections being placed on record, we consider it apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for considering afresh. The appellant may file

¶63

6 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:53155-DB WA No. 86 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 1055 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

statement of objections to the writ petition within a period of two weeks from date. Rejoinder, if any to the same, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶67

List the writ petition being W.P No.24410/2021 on 18.02.2026.

¶68

The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶69

The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

¶70

In view of the above, the contempt petition for disobedience of the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24410/2021 (LB-RES), is closed.

¶71

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶72

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶73

AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Commissioner v. Syed Mazhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner v. Syed Mazhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashwanth J L Vs the Principal Secretary

M/S Kvr Sowbhagya Properties Vs Mr. B Sreedhar

Smt. Beena Prasad Vs Corporation Bank

Sri Nataraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Kumaravelu Vs Manivannan

M/S Volvo Financial Services (India) Private Limited Vs M/S S S Constructions