Karnataka High Court
Shrinivas Nayak vs Nagaraj Devappa Nayak on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
C.C.C NO. 425 OF 2022 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1 . SHRINIVAS NAYAK
S/O RAMAKRISHNA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2 . SADANANDA NAYAK
S/O RAMAKRISHNA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3 . SADHU SHETTY
S/O LATE GOWVARDHAN SHETTY
@ KUINTHRA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
4 . MALATHI DEVI
D/O LATE RANAKRISHNA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O KELA PARKALA
POST PARKALA - 576 107
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U., ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND:
1. NAGARAJ DEVAPPA NAYAK
S/O DEVAPPA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
THIRTHAHALLI UDUPI.
N.H. PWD COMPOUND,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
ALSO WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB DVN,
SRINGERI - 577 139,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
... ACCUSED
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R-2)
---
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANTS,
WHEREIN THEY PRAY THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO INITIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
FOR WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY DISOBEYED THE
COURT ORDER DATED: 05.04.2022 PASSED IN
WP.NO.6862/2021 (LA-RES) AND ETC.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
This contempt petition arises out of the judgment and
order dated 05.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.6862/2021
(LA-RES).
2. The operative portion of the order passed by
the writ Court, for convenience, is reproduced below:-
"19. The petitioners other than contending
that the second respondent have failed to
consider the prevailing facts have not set out
the details to make out a case and in the
absence of the material to substantiate a
ground as above, this Court cannot opine that
there is any failure in extending the
opportunity as contemplated under provisions
of Section 3C of the NH Act. Therefore, the
writ petition stands rejected. The authorities
are directed to maintain status quo for a
period of six [6] week from today so that the
petitioners have a reasonable opportunity, if
they are so advised, to pursue their further
remedy."
3. From the perusal of the writ Court's order, it is
very much evident that the writ Court did not grant any
relief to the complainants/petitioners and dismissed the writ
petition on merit. However, in order to provide an
opportunity to the complainants to avail the legal remedy
available to them in law, the Court had observed that the
Authorities shall maintain status quo for a period of six
weeks from the date of the order, i.e., 05.04.2022.
4. It is the admitted case of the complainants that
they have already availed the legal remedy by way of filing
a writ appeal against the impugned judgment and order
dated 05.04.2022. In the writ appeal, the interim relief has
also been prayed which is pending for consideration before
the writ appeal Court.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
complainants that before the period of six weeks had
expired, accused No.1 has changed the nature of land and
caused damage to the land of the complainants.
6. Learned counsel for the complainants is not
able to show as to when the order of the writ Court was
duly communicated to accused No.1. It is also to be noted
that the complainants have already availed the reasonable
opportunity by way of filing a writ appeal and praying for
interim relief before the writ appeal Court and as such, the
purpose for which the writ Court had directed the
Authorities to maintain status quo on the site has been
fulfilled.
7. In this view of the matter, we are of the
considered view that the contempt petition is misconceived
and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS
