Karnataka High Court

Smt Yashoda Veeramayanna vs Mr. Prasanna Kumar K.K on 16 January, 2025

Author: K.Somashekar

Bench: K.Somashekar

                                       -1-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB
                                                     CCC No. 558 of 2022




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 16TH 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. 558 OF 2022
            BETWEEN:

                  SMT YASHODA VEERAMAYANNA
                  W/O H R LAKSHMIANARAYANA
                  AGED 66 YEARS
                  R/AT NO 31375, NEUMA DRIVE
                  CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 92234
                  USA.
                  PRESENTLY R/AT
                  C/O SMT VASANTHA VASU
                  NO 4, BRIGADE PARK VIES
                  BASAVANAGUDI
Digitally         BENGALURU 560004.
signed by                                            ...COMPLAINANT
SUMATHY
KANNAN       (BY SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR - SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. AKASH
Location:    B SHETTY - ADVOCATE)
High Court AND:
of Karnataka
            1.    MR. PRASANNA KUMAR K.K.
                  THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                  (KIADB METRO)
                  NO 14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVAN
                  NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
                  BENGALURU 560001.

            2.    SRI B M MARANNA
                  AGED 80 YEARS
                  S/O LATE MAYANNA
                             -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB
                                        CCC No. 558 of 2022




      R/AT NO 1101, 4TH BLOCK
      DR RAJ KUMAR ROAD
      RAJAJINAGAR
      BANGALORE 560010.

3.    SRI. B M VISHWANATH
      AGED 78 YEARS
      S/O LATE MAYANNA
      R/AT NO 1101, 4TH BLOCK
      DR RAJKUMAR ROAD
      RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560010.
                                                   ...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY - AG FOR SRI. B B PATIL -
ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO.1; SRI. G PANDURANGA -
ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NOS. 2 & 3)

       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   FIND   THE
ACCUSED GUILTY OF COMMISSION OF CONTEMPT OF ORDERS
OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN WP NO.47161/2018 DATED
15.04.2019   AND   WA   NO.1844/2019    DATED      29.08.2019
(ANNEXURE-A AND B)         AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE SAME CONSEQUENTLY
SENTENCE THE ACCUSED TO IMPRISONMENT.

       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
                                -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB
                                              CCC No. 558 of 2022




                           ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

This contempt proceedings is initiated by the

complainant against the respondents/accused for having

deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders passed by

this Court in WP.No.47161/2018 (LA-KIADB) dated

15.04.2019 vide Annexure-A and WA.No.1844/2019 (LA-

KIADB) dated 29.08.2019 vide Annexure-B.

2. Learned Senior counsel Sri D.R Ravishankar

appears for learned counsel Sri Akash.B.Shetty who is on

record for the complainant. Learned AG Sri Shashikiran

Shetty appears for learned counsel Sri B.B.Patil who is on

record for Respondent/Accused No.1. Learned counsel

Sri G.Panduranga for Respondents/Accused Nos.2 and 3 is

present.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the complainant has

taken us through the order passed by the learned Single

Judge in WP.No.272/2020 c/w WP.No.358/2020 (LA-

NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB

KIADB) and also presses into service for consideration of

the said order wherein paragraph No.5 indicates as that

the impugned award deserves to be quashed and the

matter be remitted back to Respondent No.2 - Spl.LAO for

reconsideration afresh by directing the Respondent No.2 to

take appropriate decision and pass suitable orders

including passing a fresh award in accordance with law,

after hearing all concerned parties including respondents

herein and all other concerned persons within a period of

three months after appearance of all the parties before

Respondent No.2-Spl.LAO.

4. Learned AG for accused No.1 presses into service

for consideration of the aforesaid judgment passed by this

Court in WP.No.47161/2018 (LA-KIADB) dated 15.04.2019

and WA.No.1844/2019 (LA-KIADB) dated 29.08.2019. He

further submits that Accused Nos.2 and 3 are receivers of

the compensation award by the competent

authority/Spl.LAO and this contempt proceeding is filed by

the complainant after lapse of 3 years.

NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB

5. Keeping in view the contentious contentions made

by the learned Senior counsel for complainant and learned

AG for Respondent/Accused No.1, it is deemed appropriate

to refer Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

which reads as under:

20. Limitation for actions for contempt.-- No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

6. Further, it is also relevant to refer the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao

vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764

in paragraphs 52 and 53 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

NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB

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.

53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court.'

7. However, it is also relevant to refer paragraph

Nos.4 and 5 of WP.No.47161/2018 dated 15.04.2019

wherein Para No.4 indicates as the learned counsel for

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 has filed an application seeking

permission to deposit the award amount before the

jurisdictional court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act for short). The said application

has been allowed. Para No.5 indicates as in view of the

inter-se dispute between the petitioner and Respondent

NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB

Nos.4 to 6, it would be appropriate to relegate the

petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 for redressal of their