Disposed¶65

Sri Rajat Saxena v. Sri Jagadeesha G

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Ss.11, 12

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2026CCC/1017/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC No. 1017 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka (DB: Vibhu Bakhru CJ & K.S. Hemalekha J), 18.06.2026 - civil contempt by Rajat Saxena against Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Urban, Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore North Taluk and State of Karnataka for non-implementation of order dated 22.04.2025 in W.P.No.7705/2025(GM-RES) enforcing K-RERA orders dated 01.04.2024 (Sec.161, Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964) against builder M/s Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Pvt Ltd; attachment order dated 14.05.2026 for Rs.16,41,296/- plus 2% interest; complaint closed without initiating contempt proceedings, liberty to revive.

What did the court decide?

No contempt proceedings initiated; the complaint is closed with liberty to the complainant to revive it upon continued wilful default in implementation. ¶65

Sri Rajat Saxena Vs Sri Jagadeesha G — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No contempt proceedings initiated; the complaint is closed with liberty to the complainant to revive it upon continued wilful default in implementation.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused (the Deputy Commissioner and other officials, with the State as pro-forma respondent) wilfully disobeyed the order dated 22.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.7705/2025(GM-RES) so as to warrant initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

It is apparent that the accused has taken steps to implement the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the disobedience of which is alleged, as evidenced by the fresh attachment order dated 14.05.2026 for recovery of Rs.16,41,296/- with 2% interest.

¶63-64

Key takeaways

It is not apposite to initiate any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; the complaint is closed with the aforesaid observations.ratio¶65
The complainant is at liberty to revive the present complaint if the accused wilfully refrains from taking further steps for implementing the order dated 22.04.2025 within a reasonable period of time.obiter¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Ss.11, 12 - civil contempt complaint alleging wilful disobedience of the learned Single Judge's order dated 22.04.2025 in W.P.No.7705/2025(GM-RES), which directed implementation of the K-RERA orders dated 01.04.2024 awarding compensation with interest against the builder M/s Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited - accused issued confiscation order dated 16.03.2026; an earlier attachment order dated 27.02.2026 was stayed by interim order dated 13.03.2026 in the builder's W.P.No.8289/2026 for want of particulars - after this Court's clarification dated 26.03.2026 permitting a fresh order with full particulars, the accused filed a compliance affidavit with attachment order dated 14.05.2026 attaching Flat No.1701, Towers C, Survey No.16/2, Tirupalya village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk for recovery of Rs.16,41,296/- with 2% interest - held: the accused has taken steps to implement the order; it is not apposite to initiate proceedings under the 1971 Act - complaint closed, complainant at liberty to revive upon continued wilful default.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29878-DB CCC No. 1017 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI RAJAT SAXENA

¶12

S/O SRI RAJEEV KUMAR SAXENA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶13

RESIDING AT: A-901 NESTER RAGA APARTMENT CHINAPPA LAYOUT MAHADEVAPURA BANGALORE - 560 048

¶14

…COMPLAINANT

¶15

(BY SRI VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

SRI JAGADEESHA G DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶19

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.R. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009

¶20

SRI JAGADISH K. NAIK SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -1 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.R. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009

¶21

...ACCUSED

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:29878-DB CCC No. 1017 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ROOM NO.320, 3^RD FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶26

…PRO-FORMA RESPONDENT

¶27

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

¶28

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE ORDERS HOLDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF GROSS CONTEMPT OF THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 22.04.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.7705/2025 (ANNEXURE - B) AND DIRECT THE ACCUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID ORDER BY IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN COMPLAINT

¶29

NO.CMP/220523/0009507 (ANNEXURE - A).

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:29878-DB CCC No. 1017 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

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

¶37

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A.No.1/2026, the

¶38

personal appearance of accused No.2 is exempted for the day.

¶39

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7705/2025(GM-RES).

¶40

The complainant had filed the said petition, inter alia , praying that directions be issued to the accused to act in accordance with the orders dated 01.04.2024 and 03.06.2024 passed under Section 161 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and that directions be issued to the respondents to conclude the recovery of arrears of land revenue as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

The complainant had sought implementation of the orders passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority ( K-RERA ) awarding compensation along with interest in favour of the complainant and against the builder, M/s Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:29878-DB CCC No. 1017 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and had directed the accused to implement the orders dated 01.04.2024 passed by the K-RERA within a period of three months.

¶46

The accused had issued orders dated 16.03.2026, confiscating the property of the builder in question for implementing this Court's order dated 22.04.2025, the disobedience of which is alleged.

¶47

At the hearing held on 26.03.2026, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the accused pointed out that the concerned builder (M/s Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited) had filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.8289/2026, challenging the order issued by the accused.

¶48

In the said petition, the Court had passed an interim order dated 13.03.2026, staying the attachment order passed by the accused. A plain reading of the said order indicates that the attachment order had been stayed on the ground that it did not contain details regarding the specific properties. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court had passed the following order on 26.03.2026.

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29878-DB CCC No. 1017 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

"1. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the accused has filed an affidavit of compliance enclosing therewith the Order dated 27.02.2026.

¶52

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the said order has been stayed in the writ petition being W.P.No.8289/2026 preferred by the concerned builder (M/s.Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited).

¶53

The copy of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court staying the operation of the said attachment order has been placed on record. The same indicates that the interim order has been granted on the ground that the attachment order did not specify the particulars of the survey number or identify the properties of the attachment.

¶54

However, the Additional Government Advocate submits that not only the attachment order was issued, but the possession of some of the properties was also taken over prior to the communication of the stay order dated 13.03.2026.

¶55

In view of the above, we clarify that it would be open for the accused to issue a fresh order with full particulars if it considers expedient, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending W.P.No.8289/2026. It would also be open for the accused to seek further clarification if necessary.

¶56

At the request of the learned counsel for the complainant, list on 12.06.2026."

¶57

The accused has filed the compliance affidavit enclosing therewith an attachment order dated 14.05.2026, attaching the property described as Flat No.1701, Towers C situated on Survey No.16/2 of Tirupalya village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, for

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:29878-DB CCC No. 1017 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

recovery of an amount of Rs.16,41,296/- along with interest at the

¶62

rate of 2%.

¶63

It is apparent from the above that the accused has taken steps to implement the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.04.2025, the disobedience of which is

¶64

alleged.

¶65

In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to initiate any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The complaint is closed, with the aforesaid observations.

¶66

We, however, clarify that the complainant is at liberty to revive the present complaint in the event the accused wilfully refrains from taking further steps for implementing the said order within a reasonable period of time.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶69

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶70

KMV

¶71

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Wilful disobedience alleged of the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7705/2025(GM-RES), which directed implementation of the K-RERA orders dated 01.04.2024.¶39
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 22.04.2025
Prior proceeding
Complainant filed W.P.No.7705/2025(GM-RES) praying for directions to act in accordance with the orders dated 01.04.2024 and 03.06.2024 passed under Section 161 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and to conclude recovery of arrears of land revenue expeditiously.¶40
Prior proceeding
The writ petition sought implementation of K-RERA orders awarding compensation along with interest against the builder M/s Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited.¶41
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the accused to implement the K-RERA orders dated 01.04.2024 within three months.¶45
Prior proceeding
An affidavit of compliance enclosed an order dated 27.02.2026 (attachment order subsequently stayed).¶51
Prior proceeding
The accused issued orders dated 16.03.2026 confiscating the builder's property to implement this Court's order dated 22.04.2025.¶46
Prior proceeding
The builder (M/s Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited) filed W.P.No.8289/2026 challenging the order issued by the accused.¶47
Prior proceeding
An interim order dated 13.03.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge stayed the attachment order, on the ground that it lacked particulars of the specific properties.¶48
Prior proceeding
By order dated 26.03.2026 this Court clarified that the accused could issue a fresh attachment order with full particulars, without prejudice to the parties' rights in pending W.P.No.8289/2026.¶55
Prior proceeding
On application I.A.No.1/2026, personal appearance of accused No.2 was exempted for the day.¶37-38
Prior proceeding
The petition came up for framing of charges, when the present oral order was made.¶30
Prior proceeding
The accused filed a compliance affidavit enclosing a fresh attachment order dated 14.05.2026 attaching Flat No.1701, Towers C, Survey No.16/2, Tirupalya village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk.¶57

Sri Rajat Saxena v. Sri Jagadeesha G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajat Saxena v. Sri Jagadeesha G

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

Amalor International Limited Vs M/S. Gajanana Builders and Developers

Amalor International Limited Vs G Kavitha Rajagopal

Mysore Eco Solutions Vs Sri. V.S. Mahesh

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, Vs Dr. Yogitha M P M

Sri Srinivas S v Vs Sri Shashidhar Madyal

M S Prashanth Vs Prabhuling Kavalikatti, IAS