Lt.Col.(Retd) K.G.Uthaya vs Sri.Govindaraju
2021 Latest Caselaw 6833 Kant

                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                  C.C.C.No.774/2020

BETWEEN:

LT. COL. (RETD) K.G.UTHAYA
S/O LATE K. S. GANAPATHY,
AGED 70 YEARS,
FOUR WINDS, MYSORE ROAD,
MADIKERI 571 201,
KODAGU DISTRICT.                      ... COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI. N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SR.COUNSEL
A/W SRI SOMANATH M.BAKK, ADV. AND
    SMT. ASHA.K.ADV.)

AND:

1.      SRI.GOVINDARAJU
        TAHSILDAR,
        MAJOR BY AGE,
        FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN,
        SOMWARPET TALUK,
        KODAGU DISTRICT.

2.      SRI. SHIVAPPA
        REVENUE INSPECTOR,
        MAJOR BY AGE,
        FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN,
        RAVENUE OFFICE,
        SUNITIKOPPA NAD,
        SUNTIKOPPA 571238,
        SOMWARPET TALUK,
        KODAGU DISTRICT.
                          2

3.   SRI. K. A. THIMMAIAH,
     MAJOR BY AGE,
     S/O K. D. APPACHU,
     CHINNI ESTATE, ATHUR NALLUR VILLAGE,
     SUNTIKOPPA NAD,
     SOMWARPET TALUK,
     KODAGU DISTRICT 571236.

4.   SRI. K. A. CARIAPPA,
     MAJOR BY AGE,
     S/O K. D. APPACHU,
     HARIMA ESTATE, NAKUR,
     SUNTIKOPPA,
     KODAGU DISTRICT 571237.

5.   SRI. K. A. THAMMAIAH,
     MAJOR BY AGE,
     S/O K. D. APPACHU,
     HARIMA ESTATE,
     NAKUR, SUNITIKOPPA,
     KODAGU DISTRICT 571237.

6.   SRI. B. T. PURUSHOTHAM RAI
     MAJOR BY AGE,
     S/O THYAMPANNA RAI,
     ATHUR NALLUR VILLAGE,
     SUNTIKOPPA,
     KODAGU DISTRICT 571236             ... ACCUSED

     THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE ACTION
AGAINST THE ACCUSED 1 TO 5 HEREIN UNDER CONTEMPT
OF COURTS ACT FOR VIOLATION THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT AT ANNEXURE-A TO CIRCUMVENT THE
JUDGMENT IN ANNEXURE-B AND SUCH OTHER ORDER OR
ORDERS MAY BE PASSED AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS
FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

     THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
S.SUJATHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                3

                           ORDER

This contempt petition is filed by the

petitioner/complainant to take action against the

accused Nos.1 to 6 under the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971, for alleged violation of the judgment of this court

in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006 dated

12.09.2014 (reported in ILR 2015 KAR 701) to

circumvent the judgment of this court in

R.S.A.No.903/2015 dated 24.06.2019 as alleged.

2. The complainant claims to be a retired Army

Officer. He filed O.S.No.140/2009 against the

respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein seeking for permanent

injunction, which came to be dismissed, against which

R.A.No.6/2013 was filed unsuccessfully. Being

aggrieved, the complainant has filed

R.S.A.No.903/2015. The said appeal came to be

allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed

by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C.,

Madikeri in O.S.No.140/2009 confirmed by the court

of Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri by its judgment

dated 19.01.2015 in R.A.No.6/2013, thereby decreeing

the suit of the complainant/plaintiff. Subsequently,

I.A.No.1/2019 was filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6

herein seeking for two months' time to approach the

Hon'ble Apex Court against the order passed in

R.S.A.No.903/2015, which came to be disposed of,

recording the undertaking of the complainant that the

gate shall be kept open on the suit road and they will

permit the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to use the road for

another two months from the date of the said order.

3. It is the grievance of the complainant that

instead of approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court against

the order passed in R.S.A.No.903/2015, they have

approached the Tahsildar-respondent No.1 herein

under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964; though it was submitted by the

complainant that the issue relating to 'Kadanga' has

been decided by this court in Criminal Revision

Petition No.93/2006 by its order dated 12.09.2014,

inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities

in considering the issue of 'Kadanga', the Tahsildar-

respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the order dated

14.11.2019 in utter violation of the settled principles

of law as envisaged in the said Criminal Revision

Petition No.93/2006.

4. It is pertinent to note that an appeal has been

filed by the complainant against the said order dated

14.11.2019 before the Assistant Commissioner of

Kodagu at Madikeri and the same is said to have been

pending for consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant would

submit that respondent No.1-Tahsildar has committed

breach of the order passed in Criminal Revision

Petition No.93/2006 in adjudicating upon the issue of

'Kadanga' though it was brought to his notice that no

revenue authorities have competency to decide the

same and the applicants therein/respondent Nos.3 to

6 herein ought to have been relegated to the civil

court. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Pallav Sheth -vs- Custodian and

Others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549, learned

counsel submitted that the contempt proceedings are

required to be initiated against the respondents

herein.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the complainant and

perused the material on record.

7. Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 ("the Act", for brevity) reads thus:

"2. Definitions:

(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court."

8. Admittedly, in Criminal Revision Petition

No.93/2006 referred to by the learned counsel for the

complainant, the respondents herein were not the

parties. In terms of Section 2(b) read with Section 10

of the Act, the contempt proceedings could be initiated

for willful disobedience or breach of any judgment,

decree, direction, order writ or other process of a court

or an undertaking given to a court. It is exfacie

evident that there is no such willful disobedience or

breach of the order of Criminal Revision Petition

No.93/2006 by the respondents, as alleged by the

complainant. The said order dated 12.09.2014 passed

in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006 is not a

general declaration made by the court applicable to all

cases notwithstanding the facts and circumstances of

the case, which necessarily plays a fundamental role

in applying the legal principles to the case. In other

words, legal principles could be applied while

considering the particular facts and circumstances of

the case. There being no specific direction issued by

this court to the respondents herein, nor any breach of

such orders or directions as contended by the learned

counsel for the complainant, we are not inclined to

appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the complainant.

9. Nextly, the judgment relied upon by the

learned counsel for the complainant relates to Section

20 of the Act, which deals with limitation for initiating

contempt proceedings. The question of limitation not

being before this court insofar as the contempt herein

is concerned, with great respect, we hold that the said

judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present

case.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

complainant fairly submits that the schedule land

involved in R.S.A.No.903/2015 concluded against the

respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein is not the same as that of

the land now considered by respondent No.1-

Tahsildar. It is further significant to note that the

complainant having preferred an appeal against the

order of the Tahsildar has now made a feeble attempt

to initiate contempt proceedings against the

respondents which cannot be countenanced for the

reasons aforesaid. The argument that the Tahsildar

has no jurisdiction to decide the issue, may be a

ground for appeal which has already been initiated by

the complainant. All the grounds now urged being the

subject matter of the appeal, we find no reason to

initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents,

moreover, the same is not coming within the ambit of

Section 2(b) of the Act.

Accordingly, we dismiss the contempt petition. It

is needless to observe that the Appellate Authority

shall expedite the matter (appeal against the order

dated 14.11.2019) and after hearing both sides shall

pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with

law in an expedite manner.

In the result, the contempt petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE KNM/-