Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagarathnamma vs Sri Patil Yelagouda Shivanagouda on 8 June, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19762-DB
CCC No. 914 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CCC NO. 914 OF 2022 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O SRI MAHADEVAIAH
D/O LATE S R GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE
HARALURU POST
GULURU HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK-572104
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
2. SMT. LEELAVATHI
Digitally signed by W/O B RAJANNA
VASANTHAKUMARY
BK D/O LATE S R GOWDA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT MALLESHWARA NILAYA
6TH CROSS, SREE NAGARA
BANDEPALYA
TUMAKURU CITY-572104
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI FAYAZ SAB B G, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19762-DB
CCC No. 914 of 2022
AND:
1. SRI PATIL YELAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
TUMAKURU-572101
2. SRI AJAY V
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
TUMAKURU-572101
3. SRI MOHAN KUMAR G V
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
THE TAHASILDAR
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU-572101
...ACCUSED
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
PRO FORMA
RESPONDENT NO.4
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO
THE ACCUSED AND TO DEAL WITH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW FOR WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY NOT COMPLYING WITH
THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT DATED 31.05.2022 IN
W.P.NO.14209/2021 (KLR-RES) (ANNEXURE-J) WHICH AMOUNTS
TO AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:19762-DB
CCC No. 914 of 2022
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF
JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This contempt petition is filed alleging non-compliance of the
order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.14209/2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at
length.
3. The complainants filed the said writ petition challenging the
order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in a
Revision Petition which was filed under Section 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In paragraph 4 of the impugned
order, the learned Single Judge has recorded as under:
"4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners have also
sought for a direction to change the
revenue records in respect of the
properties in-question in the name of the
petitioners subject to the final judgment
and decree that may be passed in
O.S.No.507/2010 and O.S.No.203/1994."
NC: 2023:KHC:19762-DB
CCC No. 914 of 2022
4. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to permit
the complainants to make a request to the concerned authority and
directed that if such an application is made, the same shall be
considered in a manner known to law within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the order.
5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the accused
has filed the compliance affidavit dated 13.12.2022. It is stated in
the compliance affidavit that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge has been duly complied with by way of issuing an
endorsement dated 01.12.2022 as per Annexure-R.1. It is further
stated that there is some delay in deciding the application of the
complainants which is due to administrative reasons and an
unconditional apology is tendered for the delay.
6. A perusal of the endorsement dated 01.12.2022 shows that
after perusing the application of the complainants, the Tahsildar
had called for the report from the Revenue Inspector and passed
the order dated 04.06.2010 changing the khata in the name of
Pavathi Vaarasu Gangamma w/o S.R.Gowda. The said order was
challenged by one Sri Rudresh before the Assistant Commissioner
NC: 2023:KHC:19762-DB
CCC No. 914 of 2022
which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Sri Rudresh filed a Revision Petition
before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner
vacated the stay order and rejected the Revision Petition.
Thereafter, it was noticed that O.S.No.507/2010 and
O.S.No.203/1994 are pending in the Court of Principal Civil Judge
and JMFC. In view of these facts, the Tahsildar has concluded in
the endorsement that after the final order of the Civil Court, legal
action will be taken as per the Rules.
7. The learned counsel for the complainants vehemently
submits that the endorsement dated 01.12.2022 issued by the
Tahsildar is in total deviation from the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. He submits that the order passed by the learned
Single Judge will have to be read as directing the Tahsildar to
effect change of entries but, by the said endorsement, the
Tahsildar has only recorded that legal action will be taken as per
the Rules after the final order of the Civil Court.
8. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned
counsel for the complainants for two reasons. Firstly, paragraph 4
NC: 2023:KHC:19762-DB
CCC No. 914 of 2022
of the impugned order makes it clear that the learned Single Judge
has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the
complainants. On the contrary, it was observed that the
complainants have also sought for a direction to change the
revenue records in respect of the properties in question in the
name of the complainants subject to the final judgment and decree
that may be passed in O.S.No.507/2010 and O.S.No.203/1994.
Secondly, as the issue regarding ownership of the properties has to
be decided by the Civil Court, the Revenue Authorities certainly
cannot record a definite opinion about the same. Therefore, the
Tahsildar has concluded in the endorsement that after the final
order of the Civil Court, legal action will be taken as per the Rules.
The Tahsildar has also tendered his unconditional apology for the
delay in issuing the endorsement.
9. The scope of contempt jurisdiction is very limited. This Court
cannot critically assess the order which is passed pursuant to the
direction of the learned Single Judge. Such an exercise is not all
expected while dealing with contempt matters. The fact remains
that ultimately, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has
been duly complied with by way of issuing the endorsement dated
NC: 2023:KHC:19762-DB
CCC No. 914 of 2022
01.12.2022 and an unconditional apology has also been tendered
for the delay which was due to administrative reasons. If the
complainants have any grievance about the said endorsement,
they can challenge the same before the appropriate forum, if so
advised.
10. With the above observations, the contempt petition is
disposed of. Notice is discharged.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKV
