Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Sri Munish Moudgil Ias on 1 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17810-DB
CCC No. 1079 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1079 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
W/O LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA,
2. G. K. LAXMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA,
3. K. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA,
Digitally
signed by
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M 4. K. VENKATAPATHI
Location: AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
High Court of S/O. LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA,
Karnataka
5. SMT. HEMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O. LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA,
6. SMT. PREMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
D/O. LATE SAMPAGERE KRISHNAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17810-DB
CCC No. 1079 of 2025
HC-KAR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
GANAGALURU VILLAGE,
ANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-563 130.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGIL, SR. ADVOCATE
FOR SRI KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MUNISH MOUDGIL (IAS),
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANTS
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SRI DURGASHREE N
W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANTS
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203
3. SRI. H.G. NAGANNA GOWDA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANTS
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
TAHSILDAR
HOSAKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE 562 114
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17810-DB
CCC No. 1079 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562 114.
...ACCUSED
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
...PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER
PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 04.09.2024 IN WP
NO.22576/2022 (KLR-RES) A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-C, PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFULLY
AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ORDERS PASSED BY
THIS HONBLE COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:17810-DB
CCC No. 1079 of 2025
HC-KAR
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)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 04.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7170/2023 (KLR-RES) C/w. Writ Petition No.22576/2022 (KLR-RES), whereby Writ Petition No.7170/20223 was allowed and Writ Petition No.22576/2022 was allowed in-part and directions were issued to the concerned authorities/respondents to "consider the recommendation made by the respondent No2/Assistant Commissioner." Clause (ii) and (iii) of the operative portion of the said order are set out below:
" (ii) W.P.No.22576/2022 is allowed-in-part. The respondents shall consider the recommendation made by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-J and after verifying the records shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;
(iii) This order will not come in the way of the competent authority to hold an enquiry to ascertain whether the grant is genuine:"
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that although the recommendations have been -5- NC: 2026:KHC:17810-DB CCC No. 1079 of 2025 HC-KAR considered by the Tahsildar, however, the endorsement issued is wholly unsustainable as it seeks to overrule the recommendations. He submits that the Tahsildar cannot sit over the decision of the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the accused summits that the said directions also include verification of the records and the endorsement is issued after the records have been verified.
4. In view of the above, we do not consider it an apposite to initiate any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, we clarify that this order will not preclude the complainant from availing any substantive remedies if aggrieved by any order or action of the Tahsildar or any other authority.
5. In view of the above, this Contempt Petition stands closed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BK : List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24