Sri B Harindranath Singh vs R Anil Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3181 Kant

                           1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                       PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S.OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

             C.C.C NO. 408 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN :

1 . SRI B HARINDRANATH SINGH
    S/O B K SHYAM SINGH
    AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
    R/AT SINGHALLI VILLAGE,
    JALA HOBLI,
    BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK,
    BENGALURU-560064

     ALSO AT NO 14
     VINAYAA NAGAR,
     V V EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE,
     BENGALURU 562114

                                      ...COMPLAINANT

(By Sri PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.      R ANIL KUMAR
        FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
        COMPLAINANT
        THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER II,
        KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
        DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
        NO 39, SHANTHI GRUHA
                              2




      BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING,
      4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD,
      BENGALURU-560 001

                                              ...ACCUSED

(By Sri B B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12
OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO
TAKE COGNIZANCE OF WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE
COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED ON THE ORDER OF THIS
HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.NO.32195/2019 (LA-RES)
DATED 16.12.2019 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

     THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                      ---

                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the

learned counsel appearing for the accused.

2. In the present contempt petition, the breach

alleged is of the judgment and order dated 16th December,

2019 passed in Writ Petition No.32195 of 2019 filed by the

present complainant. Earlier, he had filed Writ Petition

No.30053 of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by

an order dated 20th July 2015. By the said order, the

predecessor of the present accused was directed to make a

reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (for short 'the said Act') and deposit the amount

awarded by way of compensation with the jurisdictional Civil

Court. The direction was to be complied with within four

weeks. In fact, the said order was passed on the basis of the

concession made by the first respondent in the said writ

petition. Instead of complying with the said order made based

on the concession made by the predecessor of the first

accused, an appeal was preferred by the predecessor of the

first accused. The appeal was dismissed on 3rd April, 2019 by

a Division Bench by observing that the act of filing of an

appeal was nothing but an abuse of process of law. As the

direction contained in the judgment and order dated 6th

August, 2013 was not complied with, the complainant could

have initiated contempt proceedings against the accused.

Instead of doing so, one more writ petition was filed by him

seeking a writ of mandamus which was disposed of by the

order dated 16th December, 2019 of which breach is alleged.

The said order was to be complied with by making a reference

under Sections 30 and 31 of the said Act and by depositing

the compensation amount with the jurisdictional Civil Court

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the

certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the complainants

served a copy of the said order along with the letter dated 16th

January 2020. Thus, the order ought to have been complied

within four weeks from 16th January 2020. As the same was

not complied with, the present contempt petition was filed on

11th February, 2021 in which notice was issued on 21st June,

2021.

3. A compliance affidavit has been filed by the

accused which records that an order was passed on 6th

August, 2021 by the accused and on 4th August 2021, the

compensation amount has been deposited with the competent

Civil Court. The order which ought to have been complied

with within four weeks from 16th January 2020, has been

complied with very belatedly in August 2021.

4. Not only that there is no real justification offered

for such a long delay, in paragraph 10, the only excuse set

out is of Covid-19 pandemic and lock-down. Surprisingly, in

paragraph 10, the delay is sought to be explained on the

ground that an appeal was pending. The appeal was

disposed of on 3rd April of 2019 and the order of which breach

is alleged has been passed on 16th December, 2019.

Therefore, there is absolutely no explanation for such a long

delay of approximately one year and six months.

5. In view of the belated compliance, though further

action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot be

taken against the accused, this is a fit case to direct the

accused to pay costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) to the complainant.

6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of

subject to condition of the accused paying the costs of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant

within a period of one month from today.

7. Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting

compliance regarding payment of costs, the same shall be

listed on 23rd September, 2021.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

DH