Karnataka High Court
Kempe Gowda vs Dr Shivakumar Biradar on 14 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41403-DB
CCC No. 637 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
CCC NO. 637 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. KEMPE GOWDA
S/O. LATE NINGAIAHA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
MARKAD DODDI
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. SHIVAKUMAR BIRADAR
Digitally THE TAHSILDAR
signed by MANDYA TALUK
AMBIKA H B MANDYA - 571 401
Location: 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
High Court REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
of Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 009
...ACCUSED
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41403-DB
CCC No. 637 of 2024
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN NOT OBEYING
THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.12327/2022 DATED 13.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE - A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Smt. Archana Murthy for the
complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate
Smt. Pramodini Kishan for the respondents.
2. The contempt is alleged by the petitioner in respect of the
following directions passed by learned Single Judge in his order
dated 13.07.2022 while disposing of the writ petitions,
"1. The prayer in these writ petitions are to
direct respondent No.2 to consider the
representations of the petitioners dated
21.03.2022 vide Annexure-B in WP
No.12297/2022; Annexure-C in WP
No.12325/2022 and Annexure-C in WP
No.12327/2022 respectively.
NC: 2024:KHC:41403-DB
2. By the said representations, the petitioners
are seeking for conducting of Durasthi in
guntas in WP No.12325/2022 and 26 guntas in
WP No.12327/2022 respectively in Sy.No.54.
3. In view of the fact that the petitioners are
seeking for Durasthi of their land, it would be
incumbent upon the Tahsildar to consider the
same and pass appropriate orders, within a
period of three months, from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. "
3. In response, affidavit in reply is filed by the Tahsildar,
Mandya Taluka, Mandya District along with which a copy of the
endorsement dated 20.08.2024 is produced. It is stated in the
affidavit while producing the endorsement that the relevant record
was examined and document regarding entries in RTC for the
period of 1966-67 to 1985-86 were not available and that
computerised RTC was available up to 2001.
3.1 Following was stated in the endorsement,
"As per this office file No. LRP.11./65-66
and L.R.P.18/86-87 in Ref (4) above, the
Assistant Commissioner personnel verified the
land grant files available in this office and the
office of Assistant Director of Land Records
wherein classified as duplicate cases in which
the files pertaining to grant of land in Sy.No.54
and 363 of Guttalu Village is also included.
These files are received in the file of Assistant
NC: 2024:KHC:41403-DB
Director of Land Records vide No.L.R.P.11/65-
66 and L.R.P.18/86-87, dated:19.5.1992.
received report from the Revenue Inspector on
2.11.1992 regarding the said case. Wherein
he has reported that saguvali chit has been
issued to Smt. Jayamma W/o. Ningayya and
others in Sy.No.54 and 363 of Guttalu Village,
Kothathi Hobli, MandyaTaluk and there are no
entries of name in L.R. and R.T.C and
reported as not in possession of the land.
Hence, the file forwarded to the office of the
Assistant Commissioner for verification and
further action on 13.11.1992".
3.2 It was next stated that inspection was carried out in respect
of the entry in the saguvali chit distribution register but, no such
saguvali chit was found. It was stated that no documents were
available to show that the land in question was granted to the
petitioner-grantee. In absence of substantial documents supporting
the claim, the request for grant was negatived, as per the
endorsement.
3.3 The operative part of the endorsement dated 20.08.2024
reads as under,
"Upon examining the file No.L.R.P.11/
1965-66 under which an extent of 1.10 acre in
Sy.No.54 of Guttalu Village, Mandya Taluk
was granted to Smt. Jayamma W/o. late
Ningaiah, in the available saguvali chit, survey
sketch, three copies dated:20.05.1996 the
date is mentioned as 20.5.1996. But there are
NC: 2024:KHC:41403-DB
no grant documents upon examining the
Saguvali Issue register, M.R. Register and the
available documents are found to be
suspicious to arrive to conclusion that they are
valid documents and hence it has been
decided that there is no provision to consider
the request of application seeking durasth of
land".
4. What was sought to be contended by learned advocate for
the complainant is that copies of the documents were available.
However, they were not duly considered by the authorities. On the
other hand learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that
the documents were only in the nature of copies and that they were
not original documents nor did they substantially support the case
of the petitioner. Be that as it may.
5. The Court finds that once the endorsement is passed, the
directions of learned Single Judge are complied with. The
contentions sought to be raised in respect of the endorsement by
the petitioner travel in the realm of merits which cannot be gone
into in the contempt jurisdiction. The contempt proceedings does
not survive. They are accordingly disposed of.
Liberty is however reserved for the complainant to challenge
the endorsement in independent proceedings in accordance with
NC: 2024:KHC:41403-DB
law and on merits, the Court however does not express any opinion
on merits in respect of such recourse.
In view of disposal of the petition, the interlocutory
application would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
AHB
