Karnataka High Court
D. M. Manjunath vs S. R. Umashankar on 15 January, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1426-DB
CCC No. 812 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 812 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
D. M. MANJUNATH
S/O. LATE D. M. RUDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT DMR HOUSE, 3RD CROSS
V. P. EXTENSION
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. H KANTHARAJ - SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. RAVI H K -
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S. R. UMASHANKAR
Digitally signed
by SUMATHY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KANNAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Location: High M.S. BUILDING
Court of DR. ABMEDKAR VEEDHI
Karnataka BENGALURU-560 001.
2. ISLAUDDIN J GADYAL
THE ADDITIONAL REGIONAL
COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027.
3. SMT. KAVITHA S MANNIGERI
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1426-DB
CCC No. 812 of 2022
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
4. CHANDRAIAH. R
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
5. B. RAMANJANEYA
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT AND
INCHARGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF LAW RECORDS
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA-577501.
6. RAMYA. K
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER
FOR SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-577 501.
7. G. H. SATYANARAYANA
THE TAHSILDAR
CHITRADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G - AGA FOR ACCUSED NO.8;
ACCUSED NOS.3 TO 7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH
THE ACCUSED FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1426-DB
CCC No. 812 of 2022
14.09.2021 PASSED IN WP NO.16513/2021 (KLR-RES) BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
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 VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt proceedings is initiated by the
complainant against the respondent/accused for having
deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by
learned Single Judge in WP.No.16513/2021 (KLR-RES)
dated 14.09.2021 vide Annexure - A.
2. Learned Senior counsel Sri H.Kantharaj appears
for learned counsel Sri Ravi H.K who is on record for the
complainant. Learned AGA Smt Namitha Mahesh B.G for
the Respondent No.8 is present.
3. In the aforesaid order passed by the learned
Single Judge, Para No.6 indicates as the petitioner is also
NC: 2025:KHC:1426-DB
permitted to make online application and make payment
of online fees since online system has been introduced as
regards these matters. Para No.7 indicates as the
concerned respondent will act on a print out of the
uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if
so furnished by the petitioner, without waiting for the
certified copy thereof. If concerned respondent has any
doubt about the order, he/she may verify the contents of
the order from the website of this Court and/or from the
learned Additional Government Advocate.
4. Learned AGA submits for consideration of the
affidavit filed by Dr.Nagaveni, Tahsildar, Chitradurga
Taluk, Chitradurga wherein para No.4 of the said affidavit
states that the Survey No.33 totally consists of 1153.35
acres of land in which an extent of 253 acres 20 guntas
have been granted to various persons and 889 acres 15
guntas is reserved as a "Reserved Forest". The lands
identified by the Department in the said Survey number,
there is formation of thick and lands are measuring around
NC: 2025:KHC:1426-DB
100 acres and the complainant has failed to identify his
land so claimed for the purpose of podi and durasthi.
Without the complainant identifying his lands of
cultivation, the Department is not in a position to identify
the said land in such a vast acres of land. Hence, a
detailed endorsement dated 06.06.2023 has been issued
to the complainant explaining the reasons as to why podi
and durasth cannot be completed and the said
endorsement also explains regarding the requisition of the
Forest Department of converting those lands as reserved
forest. Copy of the endorsement dated 06.06.2023 along
with translated copy is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-R2 for the kind perusal of this Court.
5. Keeping in view the submissions made by the
learned Senior counsel and learned AGA, it is relevant to
refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 wherein in paragraph 52
states as under:
NC: 2025:KHC:1426-DB
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, there is no
substance to consider this contempt proceeding to take
punitive action against respondents/accused.
Consequently, this contempt proceeding is hereby
dropped.
NC: 2025:KHC:1426-DB
In view of disposal of the contempt petition, if any,
interlocutory application pending, same shall also stand
disposed of.
In the meanwhile, learned Senior counsel for the
complainant seeks liberty. Therefore, liberty is granted to
the complainant to proceed further in accordance with law.
SD/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
SD/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RJ
