Karnataka High Court
Meena H N vs Ms A H Kalavathi on 18 April, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
CCC No. 845 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 844 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 845 OF 2022
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 844 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MEENA H.N,
WIFE OF C.K. RAVISHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
CHIKKABALLI VILLAGE & POST,
BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
...COMPLAINANT
Digitally signed by
HARIKRISHNA V [COMMON]
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. MS. A.H. KALAVATHI,
W/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED MAJOR,
SECRETARY AND PANCHAYATH
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
CCC No. 845 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 844 of 2022
2. SRI. NINGARAJU,
S/O NOT KNOWN MAJOR
PRESIDENT ,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
3. MS. A.P. SUMA,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN ,
MAJOR ,
VICE PRESIDENT ,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
4. MS. GEETHA,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN ,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT ,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
5. KARIGOWDA,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
6. B.H. VINODHA,
SON OF NOT KNOWN ,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
7. H.B ASHOK,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
CCC No. 845 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 844 of 2022
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
8. MS. R. VAISHALI,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
9. H.M. RAMESH,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
10. T. LOKESHA,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
11. THAYAMMA,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
12. MS. PREMA,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN.
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
CCC No. 845 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 844 of 2022
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
13. MS. BHAGYAMMA,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
14. RAMALINGEGOWDA,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
15. K.M. NAGARAJU,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
16. B.S. SHRUTI,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
17. MS. P.R MALASHREE,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
CCC No. 845 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 844 of 2022
18. A.N KRISHNA,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
19. N. DAYANANDA,
SON OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
20. MS. P.K. SUDHAMANI,
WIFE OF NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MEMBER,
HALLEGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT,
HALLEGERE BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
21. SMT. THAYAMMA
WIFE OF C.K SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
CHIKKABALI VILLAGE & POST,
BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK -571 446.
...ACCUSED
[COMMON]
(BY SRI. K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
CCC.NO.845/2022 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
WILFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF
THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 22.01.2013 PASSED IN WP
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
CCC No. 845 of 2022
C/W CCC No. 844 of 2022
NO.33137/2011 AND 34099-101/2011 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
CCC.NO.844/2022 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
WILFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF
THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 22.01.2013 PASSED IN WP
NO.33136/2011 AND 34129-131/2011 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
K.SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This contempt petition initiated for the wilful
disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court in W.P.No.33137/2011 and 34099-34101/2011
(LB-RES) dated 22.01.2013, wherein the learned Single Judge
while disposing the writ petition directed the Secretary, Gram
Panchayat i.e., respondent No.2 to retain the khata in respect
of the properties which are the subject matter of the said writ
petitions in the joint names of the complainant and one
Thayamma i.e., respondent No.1. However, after passing of
the said order by the learned Single Judge, the respondent
No.1 changed the khata of the subject properties contrary to
the order passed in W.P.No.33137/2011 and 34099-
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
34101/2011 (LB-RES) dated 22.01.2013. Hence, the
complainant initiated this contempt petition.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
complainant that when there is a specific order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid writ
petitions not to change the khata and retained the khata in the
joint names of complainant and respondent No.1, in spite of
that the respondent No.1 has changed the khata which
amounts to gross contempt and accused is liable to be
punished for the disobedience. The learned counsel placed the
reliance of the judgment in the case of Jamuna Rai and
Others vs. Chandradip Rai and Others reported in 1960
SCC OnLine PAT 119 in Para Nos.94 and 95, which are
extracted hereunder.
"94. A decree is final if it finally disposes of
the rights of the parties. But when an appeal is
pending from that decree, it is not final for the
rights of the parties were still under appeal. The
finality must be finality, in relation to the suit. If
after the decree the suit is still a live suit in
which the rights of the parties have still to be
determined, a final order comprises of the
cardinal issue in the suit. The term "suit"
includes the appellate stage, thereof. The suit,
therefore, will be deemed to be pending : until
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
the appeal is finally disposed of and a final order
passed upon the appeal.
95. The word 'appeal' has not been defined
in the Code, and, as such, it has to be construed
in its natural and ordinary meaning. It,
therefore, means "the removal of a cause from
an inferior to a superior Court for the purposes
of testing the soundness of the decision of the
inferior Court". It is thus a remedy provided by
law for getting the decree of the lower Court
cancelled, and is in fact a complaint made to the
higher Court that the decree of the lower Court
is unsound and wrong."
3. By relying the above norms he would submit that,
on perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it
is clear that on the civil suit being decided and the same
attaining finality, either the petitioner or respondent No.1
would be entitled to re-approach the Gram Panchayat seeking
for necessary entries in the record based on the right declared
in their favour. In such circumstance, the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment squarely applicable
to the facts of this case since RFA No.1785/2018 is pending
before this Court against the order passed in the Civil Court in
O.S.No.77/2012. In such circumstance, without attaining the
finality of the civil case the change of khata effected by the
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
respondent amounts to wilful disobedience. As such, the
respondents are liable to be punished.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1
would contend that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge is more than clear that the retaining of khata in the joint
names is only an interim arrangement made till the disposal of
the suit in O.S.No.77/2012. The said suit was disposed on
27.03.2018. Thereafter, on 25.10.2019, respondent No.21
submitted the representation to register the khata in her
name. However, after obtaining legal opinion from the
concerned, the Panchayat proceeded to effect the name of
respondent No.21 pursuant to the legal opinion obtained by
them on 29.09.2021. According to the learned counsel, though
RFA No.1785/2018 was filed challenging the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.77/2012 on 12.10.2018, the same
has filed after the limitation period and till today, I.A. for
condonation of delay is not considered by this Court. As such,
it cannot be said that the judgment passed in O.S.No.77/2012
is not attained finality. According to him, till the condonation
of delay in RFA No.1785/2018, the filing of the appeal cannot
be considered for any purpose. As such, the change of khata
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
effected by the respondent No.1 is as per law. However, the
learned counsel for the complainant would submit that once
the delay is condoned in RFA No.1785/2018, the file is restored
back to the date of filing i.e., on 12.10.2018 and cause of
action begins from that day for all purpose. As such, it cannot
be said that the civil dispute attained finality as observed by
the learned Single Judge in writ proceedings.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties so also having perused the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, it could be seen that the learned Single Judge
has made it clear that the indication for having retaining the
khata is only an interim arrangement for till disposal. The suit
in O.S.No.77/2012 was disposed on 12.10.2018. Thereafter,
the khata was effected by the respondent No.1 on 21.09.2021.
Though the Regular First Appeal was preferred against the
order passed in O.S.No.77/2012, as rightly contended the
learned counsel, the same was not filed well within time. As
such, it has to be considered that the judgment passed in
O.S.No.77/2012 was attained finality and the khata was rightly
effected by respondent No.1 as per the order of learned Single
Judge. Prima facie, there is no wilful/gross disobedience by the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15388-DB
respondent by effecting khata in the name of respondent
No.21. In such circumstances, keeping open the liberty to the
complainant to urge all his contentions in RFA No.1785/2018
which is pending for consideration, we deem it appropriate to
drop this contempt petition.
Accordingly, this contempt petition is hereby dropped.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HKV
