Disposed

Rathnamma v. Sri. Munish Moudgil I.A.S

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026CCC/1094/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complaint alleging willful disobedience of a direction to consider Tahsildar's recommendation for land allotment to eligible beneficiaries. The State filed an affidavit explaining that beneficiary selection must be made by prescribed authorities under the Rules. Holding that the direction to take a decision had been complied with, the court closed the contempt complaint, leaving substantive remedi

What the court decided

AI extract

Rathnamma Vs Sri. Munish Moudgil I.A.S — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:37405-DB CCC No. 1094 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010558622025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

AND

¶10

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

RATHNAMMA W/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶13

PADMA W/O PARAMESHAPPA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

VIJAYA KUMAR B S/O VALLUMALAI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶18

K BALU

¶19

S/O KUPPUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶20

JAYAMMA H.C. W/O SINGARI GOWDA H.K. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶21

SHOBHA V W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY N AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶22

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:37405-DB CCC No. 1094 of 2025

¶25

CNR: KAHC010558622025

¶26

SUJATHA W/O MUDDURAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶27

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BEHIND SRS ASHRAYA NAGAR, PEENYA 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE - 560 058

¶28

…COMPLAINANTS

¶29

(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI MUNISH MOUDGIL, I.A.S. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶32

…ACCUSED

¶33

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING

¶34

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

¶35

…PRO FORMA RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR PRO FORMA RESPONDENT No.2 & ACCUSED No.1)

¶37

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, SINCE HE HAS FAILED TO OBEY AND IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2025 IN W.P. NO.4748/2025 (KLR-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-D

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:37405-DB CCC No. 1094 of 2025

¶42

CNR: KAHC010558622025

¶43

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

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

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

¶46

The complainants have filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.4748/2025 (KLR-RES). The complainants had filed the said petition, inter alia , praying that directions be issued to the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District to pass appropriate orders in terms of the recommendations dated 22.07.2022 in respect of grant of land in favour of the complainants.

¶47

The complainants had stated that the concerned Tahsildar had recommended that 3 acres and 20 guntas of land comprising in Sy.No.70, Kittanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk be reserved for the purpose of allotting sites to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. The said recommendations had been forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government. However,

¶48

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37405-DB CCC No. 1094 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

CNR: KAHC010558622025

¶51

no action was taken on the said recommendation. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to consider the recommendation and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to Baba Saheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Horata Samithi.

¶52

The learned Additional Government Advocate has filed an affidavit affirmed by the Additional Chief Secretary stating that the Department had reviewed the report submitted by the Bangalore Urban District Authorities and the selection of eligible site-less beneficiaries is required to be made by authorities such as Grama Panchayaths, Slum Development Board or the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Ltd., in accordance with the Rules. He submitted that the said recommendation has been made by Tahsildar and not by any of the authorities in accordance with the law.

¶53

In view of the above, this Court's direction to take a decision

¶54

on the recommendations has been complied. The complaint is accordingly closed.

¶55

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:37405-DB CCC No. 1094 of 2025

¶58

CNR: KAHC010558622025

¶59

We, however clarify that if the complainants are dissatisfied

¶60

with the said response, they are not precluded from availing substantive remedies, albeit in accordance with law.

¶61

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶62

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶63

SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Rathnamma v. Sri. Munish Moudgil I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rathnamma v. Sri. Munish Moudgil I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gmm Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Smt G Selvi Vs the Commissioner

Sri R M Mahadevappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S R B Seth Shreeram Narasingdas Vs Monitoring Committee

Mr. v. Narayanaswamy Vs Hosakote Planning Authority- Bmrda

Ganjam Nagappa and Son Private Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India