Disposed

Sri a R Gajendra v. Sri H T Krishnamurthy

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026CCC/186/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a civil contempt petition after finding that the complainant's representation for a municipal land allotment had been decided by an endorsement dated 13.08.2026, which stated that the land could only be disposed of through auction and no provision existed to sanction the plot. The court consigned the contempt case, leaving the petitioner free to challenge the endorsement through appropriate legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition consigned; petitioner at liberty to challenge the endorsement dated 13.08.2026 in accordance with law.

Sri a R Gajendra Vs Sri H T Krishnamurthy — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50348-DB CCC No. 186 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010101322026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 186 OF 2026

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI A R GAJENDRA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS

¶13

SON OF LATE T P RATNAM

¶14

ANUSHREE NILAYA, 1ST CROSS,

¶15

SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, ARASIKERE TALUK

¶16

HASSAN DISTRICT-573103

¶17

(SENIOR CITIZEN CLAIMED)

¶18

…COMPLAINANT

¶19

(BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ S.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶22

SRI H T KRISHNAMURTHY CHIEF OFFICER/MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, B H ROAD, NEAR SADHANA THEATER, ARASIKERE,

¶23

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573103.

¶24

...ACCUSED

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶26

VIKASA SOUDHA,

¶27

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:50348-DB CCC No. 186 of 2026

¶31

CNR: KAHC010101322026

¶32

BENGALURU 560 001

¶33

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶34

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G, AGA FOR PROFORMA R2; SMT.VIDYA SELVAMONY, ADVOCATE FOR A1)

¶35

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO PUNISH AND CONVICT ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO. 29225/2023 (LB-RES).

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶38

and

¶39

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

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

¶42

A memo containing a list of documents with a verifying affidavit is filed, enclosing therewith an order passed by the Secretary to the Government addressed to the Municipal Directorate, Bangalore, which is enclosed as Annexure-R9. In furtherance thereto, an endorsement dated 13.08.2026 is issued by the Municipal Commissioner to the accused,

¶43

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50348-DB CCC No. 186 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CNR: KAHC010101322026

¶46

informing that the land belonging to the Municipality should be disposed of only through auction and therefore, the complainant has been informed that there is no provision in the Rules to sanction the 15x20 feet plot within the limits of Arasikere Municipal Corporation to the complainant. The application has been disposed of.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the representation moved by the complainant has been decided. This contempt case is therefore consigned.

¶48

It goes without saying that it is open for the petitioner to seek such remedy against the aforesaid endorsement if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶49

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶50

Sd/(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

¶51

SPV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri a R Gajendra v. Sri H T Krishnamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a R Gajendra v. Sri H T Krishnamurthy

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