Karnataka High Court
Shri Aftab Ahammed S/O Abdul Razak ... vs Smt S Prabhavati on 13 February, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3242-DB
CCC No. 100291 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100291 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI AFTAB AHAMMED,
S/O. ABDUL RAZAK SARKAJI,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HALE TORGAL,
TAL: RAMDURG,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE-591123.
2. MOHAMMED YUNUS,
S/O. ABDUL REHMAN SARKAJI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. L.I.G 137, ASHOK NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590016.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
3. MOHAMMED AYUB,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
KATTIMANI
Date: 2024.02.16
S/O. ABDUL REHMAN SARKAJI,
12:05:01 +0530
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. LIG 137, ASHOK NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE. 590016.
4. MOHAMMED YUSUF,
S/O. ABDUL REHMAN SARKAJI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. LIG-137, ASHOK NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590016.
5. MOHAMMED AYUB,
S/O. ALLAUDDIN SARKAJI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3242-DB
CCC No. 100291 of 2023
R/O. HALE TORGAL,
TAL: RAMDURG,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
PIN CODE: 591123.
6. FAIROZ AHMED,
S/O. ABDUL RAZAAK SARKAJI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. HALE TORGAL,
TAL: RAMDURG,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE-591123.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. S. PRABHAVATI,
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL,
BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION,
BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE-591102.
2. SHRI PRAKASH HOLEPPGOL,
THE TAHSILDAR, RAMDURGA,
TALUKA: RAMDURG,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
PIN CODE: 591123.
...ACCUSED
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO THE ACCUSED NO.1
AND 2 HEREIN HAVE WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY COMMITTED
THE CIVIL CONTEMPT BY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 13-09-
2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE SAID APPEAL IN RFA
NO.100070/2014, AS PER ANNEXURE-A HEREIN AND AS SUCH THE
ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN BE KINDLY PUNISHED AS PER
SECTIONS-12 AND 14 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY
ALLOWING THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, WITH COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
K V ARAVIND, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3242-DB
CCC No. 100291 of 2023
ORDER
The complainant has preferred this contempt petition
complaining disobedience to the order dated 13.09.2022
passed by this Court in RFA No.100070/2014.
2. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that
accused Nos.1 and 2 were heard on I.A.No.11/2022 in RFA
No.100042/2014 for impleading them as proposed
respondents. In the course of hearing on I.A.No.11/2022,
the counsel on behalf of accused made submissions as
under:
"if the concerned were to file an application with the
jurisdictional Commissioner for restoration of the revenue
entries for the subject property in the name of those
persons who had the benefit of revenue entries as of the
year 2011, such application shall be considered by the
Assistant Commissioner and the revenue entries restored
accordingly"
"Insofar as the entries in favour of the government in the
revenue records for the subject property, it would suffice
for the Court to take on record the submissions that the
Assistant Commissioner would consider any application
filed for restoration of the revenue entries in favour of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3242-DB
those who had the benefit of such entries as of the year
2011 to the application".
3. Considering the said submissions made on behalf
of accused, the application was disposed by this Court on
13.09.2022. It is submitted that even though
representations are made on 15.12.2022 and 04.07.2023, no
action has been taken in compliance of the submission made
before this Court. The endorsement issued by accused No.2
dated 05.08.2023 stating that the issue of change of revenue
entries does not come under the jurisdiction of the 2nd
accused is also in violation of the statement made before this
Court and would be disobedience to the order. Thus
submission that accused Nos.1 and 2 have willfully disobeyed
the order dated 13.09.2022 passed in RFA No.100070/2014.
4. Heard Sri Sanjay S.Katageri, learned counsel for
complainant and perused the contempt petition papers.
5. The complainant is appellant in RFA
No.100070/2014. The complainant filed I.A.No.11/2022
proposing accused Nos.1 and 2 to be impleaded as
respondents in the said appeal. On issue of notice, accused
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3242-DB
Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and made
submissions in the course of argument. The submissions
made were in the context as to whether accused Nos.1 and 2
are not necessary or proper parties in RFA No.100042/2014.
The submissions of counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 has
been recorded by this Court in order dated 13.09.2022.
While disposing the application, no direction has been issued
to do any act by the accused nor any time frame is fixed for
any action to be taken/performed by the accused.
6. This Court in the case of N. Rajanna V/s
Dr.Rajaneesh Goel and another1 has held that while
issuing direction, if no time limit is fixed by the Court for
compliance of the order, contempt petition is not
maintainable. Same principle is held in CCC No.1534/2015
dated 15.12.2015.
7. As held in the judgments referred to supra, we
are of the view that in the absence of any time frame along
with the direction is issued in the order of the Court,
ILR 2017 KAR 995
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3242-DB
contempt petition alleging willful and deliberate disobedience
is not maintainable.
8. In view of the above, we are of the view that
contempt petition is not maintainable. Accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
