Dismissed¶43

Sri Rudresh v. Vs Sri. Manivannan. P

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2026CCC/1072/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC No.1072/2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 18.06.2026 by Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and K.S. Hemalekha, J. Complainant Sri Rudresh V. v. Sri Manivannan P. (Commissioner, BDA), Sri Umesh J. (Addl. LAO, BDA) and Smt. Suma R. (DC (LA), BDA). Civil contempt under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act r/w Article 215 for alleged breach of order dated 29.04.2025 in W.A. No.570/2025 (LA-BDA) settling site-allotment claims against BDA; BDA found land ungranted/Government land and allotted two sites to third parties. Contempt declined; complaint closed. Counsel: Prakash M.H. for complainant; Deepti A. for accused. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

No contempt proceedings initiated; the contempt complaint was closed. ¶43

Sri Rudresh v. Vs Sri. Manivannan. P — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30089-DB CCC No. 1072 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

¶10

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1072 OF 2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI RUDRESH V. S/O. LATE VEERABADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE-562 123.

¶13

…COMPLAINANT

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. MANIVANNAN .P THE COMMISSIONER

¶18

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (WEST),

¶19

BENGALURU-560 020.

¶20

SRI. UMESH .J ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (WEST),

¶21

BENGALURU-560 020.

¶22

SMT. SUMA .R DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LA)

¶23

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30089-DB CCC No. 1072 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK (WEST), BENGALURU-560 020.

¶26

…ACCUSED

¶27

(BY SMT. DEEPTI A., ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN RESPECT OF THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2025 IN W.A.NO.570/2025 (LA-BDA) VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No.570/2025 (LA-BDA). The said appeal was disposed of in terms of the memorandum of settlement entered into between the private parties, including the complainant. Under the settlement, the parties agreed for allocation of the developed sites allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority [ BDA ] in lieu of

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30089-DB CCC No. 1072 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

compensation for the acquisition of the subject land, in which the private parties claimed an interest.

¶37

The BDA had also agreed to proceed on the basis of the said settlement, whereby the complainant was to be allotted three sites and the remaining two sites were to be allotted to the other private party. The BDA has not proceeded with the said allotment on the ground that, upon verification, it was found that the subject land had not been granted and continued to remain Government land. The BDA has also proceeded to allot two of the sites to third parties and disputes in regard to that are pending.

¶38

We are unable to accept that the order dated 29.04.2025, the disobedience of which is alleged [settlement entered into between complainant and private parties], precluded the BDA from examining the genuineness of the grant of the land or from questioning the very entitlement of the complainant and the other private parties to any compensation. We refrain from making any further observations in regard to it, as the dispute regarding the cancellation of the sites is the subject matter of two other writ petitions.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:30089-DB CCC No. 1072 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42