Sri. B M Lakshminarayana Rao vs Sri. P. Ravikumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 13062 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

            C. C. C. NO.11 OF 2022 (CIVIL)

 BETWEEN:

 1.   SRI. B M LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO
      S/O LATE K B MADHWARAYA BHATTA
      AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

 2.   SRI K B RAMAKRISHNA
      S/O LATE K B MADHWARAYA BHATTA
      AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

 3.   SRI B M VENKATESH
      S/O LATE K B MADHWARAYA BHATTA
      AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

 4.   SRI K B SURYAKANTH
      S/O LATE K B MADHWARAYA BHATTA
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

      ALL ARE R/AT SHAKARA KRIPA,
      ASHWATHAPURA IN BADAGU MIJARU VILLAGE
      MANGALUR TALUK
      DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574225

      COMPLAINANTS 2 TO 4 REPRESENTED
      BY THEIR GPA HOLDER COMPLAINANT NO 1.
      I.E., SRI B M LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO
                             2




                                   ...COMPLAINANTS

(BY SRI.VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
    FOR SRI.DINESHA H M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI.P.RAVI KUMAR
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
     DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE - 560 001

     (V/O DATED 07.02.2022
     ACCUSED NO.1 IS DELETED.)

2.   T G GURUPRASAD
     THE TAHASHILDAR
     MANGALURU TALUK OFFICE
     MANGALURU
     DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 001

3.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU - 560 001
                                         ...ACCUSED

(BY SRI.V.SREENIDHI, AGA)

      THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND PUNISH THE
RESPONDENTS FOR GROSS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER
DATED 26.09.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P. NO.15498/2009.

     THIS CCC COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERTION
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              3




                         ORDER

The grievance of the petitioners is of non-

compliance of the order of this Court dated 26.9.2019

in W.P.No.15498/2009.

2. In paragraph 5 of the order dated 26.9.2019,

the Division Bench was pleased to refer to the judgment

of this Court and then directed the Tahsildar to

determine the compensation payable to the erstwhile

land owners under Section 47 read with 48-B of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

2. Notice was issued and in response to the

notice, the respondent-Competent Authority and

Special Land Acquisition Officer Sri T G Guruprasad filed

the affidavit of compliance of the order of this Court.

3. A perusal of the affidavit and the annexures

show that soon after the order was passed by this

Court, due to unfortunate situation i.e. the outbreak of

COVID-19 pandemic, there was a national lock down

declared and all the activities were put to as good as

stand still. Subsequently, when there was ease in the

situation, the respondent immediately submitted

proposal to his superior. His superior, in turn,

submitted to his superior. This exchange of

communication between the parties is reflected in the

communication. The proposal moved from the

Tahsildar and finally reached the Secretary. The

Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue

Department. The Additional Chief Secretary to the

Government, Revenue Department by communication

dated 18.11.2021 made a reference to all the relevant

facts and then by taking reference to the provision viz.

Section 47 of the Act, particularly Section 47(4) of the

Act, the Secretary informed the Tahsildar that the

amount payable to the petitioner cannot exceed

Rs.2,00,000/-. In turn, the Tahsildar passed an

endorsement on 28.02.2022. Thus, now the order of

this Court is duly complied with. The reasons are also

assigned for arriving at the conclusion particularly, by

the Additional Chief Secretary and then, the Tahsildar in

his endorsement. The aspect of delay is also taken care

of by submitting justifiable explanation. In case, the

petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the

respondent-authorities, he is at liberty to challenge the

decision before the Competent appropriate forum, if so

advised.

With these observations, the contempt

proceedings are dropped. Notice is discharged.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

rs