Karnataka High Court
Sri M R Ravi vs Sri Mallikarjuna on 16 October, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41822-DB
CCC No. 816 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 816 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI M R RAVI
S/O MARI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT RAYASUNDRA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 563478.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. P MAHESHA - ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SUMATHY AND:
KANNAN
Location: SRI MALLIKARJUNA
High Court THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
of Karnataka
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-209
NO.37, BYRAVESHWARA COMPLEX
MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-563 487.
...ACCUSED
(BY SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI - ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
AND TO PUNISH FOR WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY
DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 IN
W.P. NO.12546/2017 (LA-RES).
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41822-DB
CCC No. 816 of 2022
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt petition is initiated under Sections 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article
215 of the Constitution of India for willful disobedience of
the order passed by the learned single Judge in
W.P.No.12546/2017(LA-RES) dated 30.11.2021. The
learned single Judge had directed the respondent therein
to ascertain as to whether the land, which was treated as
kharab land, fell under clauses (a) or (b) of sub-rule (2) of
Rule 21 and if it was land which was covered under
clause(a), the petitioner shall be granted appropriate
compensation.
2. Learned counsel Sri P.Mahesha for the
complainant is appearing through video conferencing.
3. Learned counsel Smt.Sruti Chaganti for
respondent/accused is present before the Court physically.
NC: 2024:KHC:41822-DB
She has filed detailed affidavit along with Annexures in
compliance of the order passed by the learned single
Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. The affidavit consists
in all paragraphs 1 to 18.
4. In paragraph No.4 it is stated that
W.P.No.12546/2017 arose out of acquisition proceedings
in respect of 1675 square meters of land in Sy.No.47
situated in Rayasandra village, Kasaba Hobli, Kanakapura
Taluk, Ramanagara District belonging to the complainant
which were carried out in accordance with the provisions
of the National Highways Act as per the Tabular column
mentioned therein. In paragraph 17 it is stated that best
efforts has been made to comply the order and there is no
contempt of court orders. Annexures-R1 to R4 have been
produced in support of the compliance affidavit.
5. Keeping in view the submission made by the
learned counsel for the parties and having gone through
the contents of the compliance affidavit and the Annexures
produced therein, it is relevant to refer para 52 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
NC: 2024:KHC:41822-DB
S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1764 wherein it is observed as under:
52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court's
power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is
discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where
disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may
also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an
order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to
enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart,
refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much
would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature
of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to
exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona
fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his
disability to comply with the court's direction to its notice without
wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands
in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that
nothing impedes the course of justice.
6. Therefore, keeping in view the reliance of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra and so also, the
ingredients of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act inclusive of Article 215 of Constitution of India
as well as the affidavit filed by the counsel for the
respondent/accused, it is deemed appropriate to state that
NC: 2024:KHC:41822-DB
there is no consequence to persuade the contempt petition
in further. Consequently, the contempt petition is hereby
closed.
However, keeping in view the submission made by
learned counsel for the complainant, liberty is granted in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
DKB
