Dismissed¶40

Sri Suna Miandad v. Sri Maheshwar Rao

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2026CCC/1345/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru — CCC No. 1345 of 2025 (civil contempt) — complainant Suna Miandad v. BBMP officers (Chief Commissioner Maheshwar Rao; Joint Commissioner Satish; ARO Narasimhulu) — alleged willful disobedience of order dated 23.06.2025 in WP No.17490/2025 (LB-BMP) staying endorsement dated 05.05.2025 on A-khata to B-khata conversion — non-issuance of Khata held not willful disobedience — no contempt proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Ss. 11, 12; Art. 215 Constitution) — complaint closed, substantive remedies left open — Bench: CJ Vibhu Bakhru with K.S. Hemalekha J.

What did the court decide?

No cognizance or punishment for contempt; the complaint was closed, with liberty expressly reserved to the complainant to avail substantive remedies in accordance with law. ¶40

Sri Suna Miandad Vs Sri Maheshwar Rao — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No cognizance or punishment for contempt; the complaint was closed, with liberty expressly reserved to the complainant to avail substantive remedies in accordance with law.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused's failure to issue the Khata to the complainant despite the stay of the endorsement dated 05.05.2025 amounts to willful disobedience of the order dated 23.06.2025 in W.P.No.17490/2025, warranting initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶40

Court's answer

The allegation that the accused were not issuing the Khata despite the stay does not amount to any willful disobedience of an order warranting initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The complaint is closed, and the order shall not preclude the complainant from availing any substantive remedies, albeit in accordance with law.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition No. 1345 of 2025 (CCC), filed under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Vibhu Bakhru, CJ, author of the oral order, and K.S. Hemalekha, J.), decided 23 July 2026. The complainant, Sri Suna Miandad, alleged deliberate disrespect and willful disobedience by BBMP officers — Chief Commissioner Sri Maheshwar Rao, Joint Commissioner (Bommanahalli Zone) Sri Satish, and Assistant Revenue Officer (Begur Sub Division) Sri Narasimhulu — of the Court's order dated 23.06.2025 in W.P.No.17490/2025 (LB-BMP), whereby execution and operation of the endorsement dated 05.05.2025 concerning conversion of the scheduled property from A-khata to B-khata had been stayed; his grievance was that the Khata was not being issued despite the stay. Holding: the Court found the allegation did not amount to willful disobedience warranting contempt proceedings; the complaint was accordingly closed, without prejudice to the complainant's substantive remedies in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:38036-DB CCC No. 1345 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010681852025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 23^RD 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. 1345 OF 2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI SUNA MIANDAD S/O KS SAMIULLA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 1096 7^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN NEAR SAI BABA ASHRAM BTM LAYOUT 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE - 560 029

¶13

…COMPLAINANT

¶14

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN S, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI MAHESHWAR RAO CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE, NR SQUARE BANGALORE- 560 002

¶18

SRI. SATISH THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:38036-DB CCC No. 1345 of 2025

¶22

CNR: KAHC010681852025

¶23

BOMMANAHALLI ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CMC BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560 068

¶24

SRI. NARASIMHULU ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BEGUR SUB DIVISION BOMMANAHALLI ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE- 560 014

¶25

…ACCUSED

¶26

(BY Ms. SOWMYA R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUMANA BALIGA M, ADVOCATE FOR A-1 TO A-3)

¶27

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 FOR DELIBERATE DISRESPECT AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.17490/2025 DATED 23.06.2025 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR CONTEMPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

and

¶31

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

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

¶34

The complainant has filed a present complaint alleging willful

¶35

disobedience of the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by this Court in

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:38036-DB CCC No. 1345 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CNR: KAHC010681852025

¶39

W.P.No.17490/2025 (LB-BMP), whereby the execution and operation of the endorsement dated 05.05.2025, which was impugned in the said petition was stayed. The said endorsement is concerned with converting the scheduled property from A-khata to B-khata. The complainant's grievance is that despite the endorsement being stayed, the accused are not issuing the Khata to the complainant.

¶40

We are unable to accept that the allegation amounts to any willful disobedience of an order warranting initiation of the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The complaint is accordingly closed. This order shall not preclude the complainant from availing any substantive remedies, albeit in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶43

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Suna Miandad v. Sri Maheshwar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suna Miandad v. Sri Maheshwar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Hi-Tech Iti Vs N S Chidananda

M/S Gmm Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Smt M Puttarajamma Vs Mr Manivannan P

Saraswathi Amma Vs Mr Munish Moudgil

The Executive Engineer Vs the Chief Secretary

The Executive Engineer Vs the Chief Secretary