Mohan Babu Vs Sri Jagadeesha G — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mohan Babu Vs Sri Jagadeesha G — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No adjudication of guilt; the complaint was closed. The accused were bound to the Advocate General's statement that, upon the complainant producing sworn affidavits of 'no objection' from his mother and brother, their names would be deleted from the khatha.

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 28.10.2025 refusing entry of the complainant's name in the khatha (on the ground that the land was acquired by BDA for Dr Shivaram Karanth Layout) amounts to willful disobedience of the order dated 07.07.2025 in Writ Petition No.5058/2025 (KLR-RR/SUR), i.e., contempt of court. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Advocate General stated that the heirs' names are required to be entered in the records, but undertook that if the complainant produces sworn affidavits of 'no objection' from his mother and brother, their names would be deleted; this statement was taken on record and the accused were bound to it, on which basis the complaint was closed without any adjudication of contempt.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition (CCC No. 1058 of 2025) under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk, and the State of Karnataka (Department of Revenue) of the learned Single Judge's order dated 07.07.2025 in Writ Petition No.5058/2025 (KLR-RR/SUR), whereby accused No.2 was directed to enter the complainant's name in the revenue records in terms of an order in Writ Petition No.8508/2024. Grievances: an endorsement dated 28.10.2025 refusing khatha entry on the ground of BDA acquisition for Dr Shivaram Karanth Layout, and entry of the complainant's mother's and brother's names alongside his own. The complainant's name had since been entered in the khatha. On the Advocate General's statement — recorded and accepted — that the heirs' names are required in the records but that the mother's and brother's names would be deleted upon production of sworn affidavits of 'no objection', the Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, authoring, with C.M. Poonacha, J) bound the accused to the statement and closed the complaint; no contempt adjudicated.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19376-DB CCC No. 1058 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1058 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

MOHAN BABU S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. NO.44, DEVASANDRA, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU -560 094

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

SRI.JAGADEESHA G THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU -562 110.

SRI. PRAMOD PATIL, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU -560 009.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19376-DB CCC No. 1058 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001,

…ACCUSED

(BY SRI.K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL, A/W SRI.K.S.HARISH. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHERE IN HE PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO HOLD THE ACCUSED PERSONS HEREIN GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.5058/2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

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

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

ORAL ORDER

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

The complainant impugns the endorsement dated 28.10.2025, which is to the effect that the name of the complainant cannot be entered in the khatha as the land has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority [ BDA ] for the formation of Dr Shivaram Karanth Layout. The complainant alleges that the

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19376-DB CCC No. 1058 of 2025

HC-KAR

endorsement amounts to willful disobedience of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5058/2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) whereby, accused No.2 was directed to enter the name of the complainant in the revenue records in the terms of an order passed in Writ Petition No.8508/2024.

The complainant's name has since been entered in the khatha. However, the names of the complainant's mother and brother have also been entered, along with the complainant's name.

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the direction was to enter the complainant's name, not that of his mother and brother.

The learned Advocate General appearing for the accused submits that the order passed cannot be construed as to exclude the names of the other heirs. He submits that since the complainant claims rights in respect of the property belonging to his father, the names of the other heirs of the complainant's deceased father, namely, the complainant's mother and brother, are also

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19376-DB CCC No. 1058 of 2025

HC-KAR

required to be entered in the records. He, however, states that if the complainant produces sworn affidavits of 'no objection' from his mother and his brother, their names would be deleted. The said

statement is taken on record.

The accused are bound to the said statement.

In view of the above, the present complaint is closed.

SD/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7