Disposed¶64

Sri. J. N. Chikkamadiah v. Sri Muniah Moudgil

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2026CCC/1432/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: civil contempt; wilful disobedience; Article 215 Constitution of India; Sections 11 and 12 Contempt of Courts Act; encroachment removal; Tahsildar Mandya; W.P.No.15744/2021 (KLR-RES); order dated 07.07.2025; compliance affidavit; mahazar; Assistant Director of Land Records; partial demolition; private land versus encroached land; complaint closed; liberty to avail other remedies; High Court of Karnataka Division Bench; Vibhu Bakhru Chief Justice; C.M. Poonacha Judge; NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB.

What did the court decide?

No punitive order; the contempt complaint is closed, with liberty to the complainants to pursue any other available remedy and liberty to the authorities to act if the undemolished portion is found to be on encroached land. ¶64

Sri. J. N. Chikkamadiah Vs Sri Muniah Moudgil — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused authorities committed wilful disobedience (civil contempt) of the order dated 07.07.2025 in W.P.No.15744/2021 by demolishing only part of the house alleged to be on encroached land. +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

Although the learned Single Judge's order did not expressly direct removal of the encroachment, his observations were rightly interpreted as an indication for the authorities to take necessary action.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

There is no wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge; the alleged partial demolition does not constitute civil contempt.

¶63

Key takeaways

The Court found it unnecessary to examine in further detail the controversy whether the entire house or only part of it stood on encroached land.obiter¶63
The complaint is closed; the complainants are not precluded from availing any other remedy available in law, and the authorities are not precluded from examining whether the undemolished part is built on encroached land and from taking further action if it is.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition (CCC No. 1432 of 2025) under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by thirteen complainants of Mandya alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 07.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15744/2021 (KLR-RES), by which the writ petition of Smt. Rukkamma against the Tahsildar's order dated 31.05.2017 (directing removal of a house encroaching on a road) was dismissed with the observation that there was no impediment to removing the encroachment within two months. The accused officials filed a compliance affidavit showing notice to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mandya, initiation of removal, a mahazar, and photographs of partial demolition. Complainants contended the entire house stood on encroached land; the Additional Government Advocate contended the remainder was on private land. Held (per Vibhu Bakhru, CJ): there was no wilful disobedience; the controversy over the status of the undemolished portion was left unexamined; the complaint was closed, preserving the complainants' recourse to other remedies and the authorities' power to act against any remaining encroachment.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1432 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI J.N. CHIKKAMADIAH S/O. LATE NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶11

SRI K. PREMA W/O. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶12

SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O. LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI KRISHNA S/O. NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶16

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶17

SRI SACHIN S/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶18

SRI NINGAIAH S/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SMT PADMAMMA W/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT49 YEARS

¶23

SMT. ANUSUYA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶24

SRI NAGARAJU S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶25

COMPLAINANTS NO.1 TO 10 ARE R/AT JAWANAGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 404

¶26

SRI C. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶27

SRI JAYARAM S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶28

SRI RAMACHANDRA K.K. S/O KAILASH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶29

COMPLAINANTS NO.11 TO 13 ARE R/AT KAGEHALLADAODDI VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 404

¶30

…COMPLAINANTS

¶31

(BY SRI K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

SRI MUNIAH MOUDGIL THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

SRI DR. KUMAR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 404

¶37

SRI SHIVANANDAMURTHY. M THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 404

¶38

SRI VISHWANATH THE TAHASILDAR MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 404

¶39

…ACCUSED

¶40

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶41

…PRO FORMA RESPONDENT

¶42

(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)

¶43

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT PRAYING TO TAKE OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED PERSONS IN VIOLATING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN W.P. NO.15744/2021 DATED 07.07.2025 AND TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED AUTHORITIES FOR HAVING COMMITTING CLEAR CONTEMPT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶44

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

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

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

¶50

The complainants have filed the present complaint alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15744/2021 (KLR-RES).

¶51

The said petition was filed by one Smt. Rukkamma, wife of Sri T.L.Kempaiah impugning an order dated 31.05.2017 passed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar whereby, the writ petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment (house which was found to be constructed on the road).

¶52

The learned Single Judge had dismissed the said petition with the observations that there is no impediment for the authorities to remove the encroachment, if any, at the earliest within an outer limit of two months.

¶53

Although, it is not expressly directed that the encroachment be removed, however, the observations made by the learned

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Single Judge have been rightly interpreted as an indication for the authorities to take necessary action.

¶57

The accused has filed an affidavit of compliance affirming that the accused had given an immediate notice to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mandya for taking necessary action for removing the encroachment and to draw a mahazar. Subsequently, the action for removing the encroachment was initiated and a mahazar has also been withdrawn. Copy of the same is also enclosed with the compliance affidavit. Some of the photographs annexed with the affidavit indicate that certain construction that was raised has been demolished.

¶58

The learned counsel for the complainants submits that although part of the house raised has been demolished, the entire house has not been demolished. According to the complainants, the entire house was built on encroached land. However, only a portion of the same has been demolished.

¶59

This submission is contested by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the accused. He submits that part of the house that had encroached upon the road has been demolished. He further submits that the remaining part of the

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

house is on private land and therefore, the same has not been demolished.

¶63

It is not necessary for this Court to examine this controversy in any further detail. It is apparent that there is no wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶64

The complaint is accordingly closed. However, we clarify that the complainants will not be precluded from availing any other remedy, if available in law. The authorities are also not precluded from examining the contention whether the part of the house which has not been demolished is not built on private land. If it is found that the remaining house is also built on encroached land, this order will not preclude the authorities from taking further action.

¶65

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶66

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶67

KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. J. N. Chikkamadiah v. Sri Muniah Moudgil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. J. N. Chikkamadiah v. Sri Muniah Moudgil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Smm Silk Reeling Industry (Arm) Vs Mrs Afshana Parveen

Union of India Vs M/S Mcphar International Pvt. Ltd.

Union of India Vs M/S Mcphar International Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Manel Vaman Nayak Vs Mr Manel Venkatraya Nayak

Srinivasa R Vs Sri Sudhakar Reddy a.

Satchmo Holdings Limited Vs Alpha Devanahalli Properties LLP