Disposed

J G Krishnamurthy, v. Rajashekar Murthy

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2026CCC/1267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance with a High Court writ order dated 04.01.2024, which required the Tahsildar to conduct an inquiry and place the petitioner's regularisation application before the Committee within two months. The Tahsildar filed an affidavit stating the inquiry report was placed before the Committee, which rejected the application after consideration. The court found the writ order complied with and accepted the Tahsildar's unconditional apology for the delay. The contempt petition was consigned (closed) and pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition consigned (closed) as the writ court order has been complied with; unconditional apology of the Tahsildar accepted; pending applications disposed of.

J G Krishnamurthy, Vs Rajashekar Murthy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50972-DB CCC No.1267 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010635502025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1267 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

J.G.KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O J.M.GIGGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KASKEBYLU, GONIBEEDU HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 132

¶12

…COMPLAINANT

¶13

(BY SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

RAJASHEKAR MURTHY, TAHSILDAR, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 132.

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶18

…ACCUSED

¶19

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR A1 & PROFORMA R2)

¶21

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING COMMITTED THE CONTEMPT OF THE COURT ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.26391/2023 (KLR-RES).

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:50972-DB CCC No.1267 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CNR: KAHC010635502025

¶25

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and

¶26

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶29

The contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of the

¶30

order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.26391/2023. By that order, respondent No.4 therein, the Tahsildar, Mudigere Taluk was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry as directed by the Assistant Commissioner and along with his recommendation to place the application of the petitioner before respondent No.5/Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation no later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, respondent No.5/Committee was to reconsider the application of the petitioner filed in Form No.53 and pass necessary orders within a period of two months from the date on which the application was placed by the Tahsildar before the Committee.

¶31

2. An affidavit is filed by S.Ashwini, Tahsildar, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District in which it is stated

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50972-DB CCC No.1267 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CNR: KAHC010635502025

¶35

that the inquiry report together with the recommendation of the Tahsildar was placed before the competent Regularisation Committee. The Committee accepted the recommendation after due consideration of the material placed before it, and rejected the complainant's application. Therefore, we find that the order of writ Court has been complied with. It is also noted that an affidavit has been filed today by the deponent S.Ashwini, tendering her unconditional apology for the delay in compliance. The apology is accepted.

¶36

3. Since the order of the writ Court has been complied

¶37

with, the contempt case is consigned.

¶38

Pending applications are disposed of.

¶39

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶40

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶41

KSR

¶42

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

J G Krishnamurthy, v. Rajashekar Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J G Krishnamurthy, v. Rajashekar Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases