Smt Susheelamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt Susheelamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No contempt action was initiated; the complaint was closed, as the complainant's request could not be considered at this stage in view of the stay order granted (order dated 23.09.2025 of the Deputy Commissioner).

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/accused committed willful disobedience of, and contempt of, the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.18867/2024 (KLR-RR/SUR), warranting initiation of contempt action. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the complainant's request for daraksthu and phodi rests on the Assistant Commissioner's orders, which are now under appeal and were stayed by the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 23.09.2025, the complainant's request cannot be considered at this stage; accordingly the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the controversy as to attribution of delay, and closed the contempt complaint.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt petition (CCC No. 730 of 2025) filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Susheelamma, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 25.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18867/2024 (KLR-RR/SUR), which had permitted her to apply online for consideration of her request (founded on her letter dated 16.01.2024) for daraksthu and phodi of the subject land. Accused were the State of Karnataka (pro forma) and revenue officials including the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tahasildar, Deputy Director of Revenue Survey and Additional Director of Land Records. It transpired that the Assistant Commissioner's orders on which the request was founded were the subject of an appeal under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and that the Deputy Commissioner had, by order dated 23.09.2025, stayed the Assistant Commissioner's order till the next date of hearing. The Division Bench, in an oral order per Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru (bench: C.M. Poonacha, J.), held that in view of the stay the complainant's request could not be considered at this stage, declined to examine the controversy as to attribution of delay (including the counsel-contention that the complainant never filed the permitted online application), and closed the complaint without initiating contempt action.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6092-DB CCC No. 730 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 730 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O. PILLAMUNIYAPPA W/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS NO. 210, PARAVATHI NAGAR CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD ATTIBELE BANGALORE - 562 107

…COMPLAINANT

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN

Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHIVAMURTHY P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

…PRO FORMA RESPONDENT

SRI JAGADEESH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6092-DB CCC No. 730 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009

SMT. APOORVA BIDARI THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SOUTH DIVISION KEMPEGOWDA ROAD KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009

SRI SRINIVAS THE TAHASILDAR SOUTH DIVISION KEMPEGOWDA ROAD KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009

SRI KUSUMALATA THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REVENUE SURVEY OFFICE 1^ST CROSS, K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001

SRI SRIKANTHA THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS REVENUE SURVEY OFFICE 1^ST CROSS, K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001

…ACCUSED

(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE AND

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6092-DB CCC No. 730 of 2025

HC-KAR

TAKE CONTEMPT ACTION BY FRAMING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE AND COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.18867/2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) VIDE ANNEXURE-B & ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

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

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18867/2024 (KLR-RR/SUR).

The complainant had filed the said writ petition, inter alia , praying that directions be issued to accused to consider the request made in terms of the letter dated 16.01.2024 with a direction to conduct daraksthu and phodi of the subject land.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6092-DB CCC No. 730 of 2025

HC-KAR

The said petition was disposed of permitting the complainant to make an application online to the competent authority, with a further direction that if such an application is made, the same shall be considered by the respondentauthority in accordance with law.

The accused has filed a memo enclosing the documents which is a print out from the Revenue Court Case Monitoring System. The same indicates that an appeal has been filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in respect of the entries. The Deputy Commissioner had also passed an order dated 23.09.2025 staying the order of the Assistant Commissioner till the next date of hearing.

The complainant's request for daraksthu and phodi is founded on the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner which are now the subject matter of an appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that till the stay order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 23.09.2025, there was no impediment for the accused to comply with the order.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6092-DB CCC No. 730 of 2025

HC-KAR

The learned counsel for the accused submits that no

delay can be attributed to the accused as the complainant has not filed online application as permitted by the learned Single Judge.

We do not consider it necessary to examine this controversy. It is apparent that in view of the stay order granted, the complainant's request cannot be considered at this stage. The complaint is accordingly closed.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20