Karnataka High Court
Laxmamma vs Dr. Shivakumar Biradar on 14 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41404-DB
CCC No. 638 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. 638 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. LAXMAMMA
D/O. LATE NINGAIAHA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
MARKAD DODDI
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. SHIVAKUMAR BIRADAR
THE TAHSILDAR
Digitally MANDYA TALUK
signed by MANDYA - 571 401
AMBIKA H B 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
High Court DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
of Karnataka REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 009
...ACCUSED
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN NOT OBEYING
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41404-DB
CCC No. 638 of 2024
THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.12265/2022 DATED 20.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE - A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
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 direction passed by learned Single Judge in his order
dated 20.07.2022 while disposing of the writ petition,
"In view of the above, the 2nd respondent-
Tahsildar is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-C,
dated 21.03.2022 and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a 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
NC: 2024:KHC:41404-DB
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 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
NC: 2024:KHC:41404-DB
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 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:41404-DB
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
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
