Karnataka High Court
Smt. Samakka vs Sri Ravi Y on 3 March, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB
CCC No. 429 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.429 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAMAKKA
W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SRI H. SUBRAMANI
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SRIRAMANAGARA, RAMASANDRA ROAD
MULBAGAL TOWN AND TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI RAVI Y.
TAHASILDAR, MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR A-1 AND PROFORMA R-2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB
CCC No. 429 of 2023
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, WHEREIN HE
PRAYS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR THE WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.8772/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 17.08.2021 BY SECURING
HIM AND ALLOWING THE PETITION.
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS 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 proceeding has been initiated by the
complainants against respondents/accused relating to the order
dated 17.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP
No.8772/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR).
2. There is no representation of Sri. S. Visweswaraiah,
learned counsel for complainants. Even after accommodating
the complainants for four times, neither the complainants nor
learned counsel has come forward to cure the defects.
3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for
respondents/accused is present before the Court physically and
submits to consider the compliance affidavit dated 07.03.2024
NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB
along with Annexure-R1, translated copy of Annexure-R1 and
copy served acknowledgment, which is filed by respondent
No.1/accused.
4. This contempt proceeding has been initiated by
complainants after lapse of 128 days.
5. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, it is deemed appropriate to refer to 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 or its own motion or otherwise, after
the expiry of a period of one year from the date on
which the contempt is alleged have been committed."
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision of law and the
provisions of Section 2(b) and Section 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 relating to take action against
respondents/accused, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.
TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein, in paragraph
No.53 of the said judgment, it is revealed as under:
NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB
"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. It is necessary to refer to the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of
the compliance affidavit, which read as under:
"3. I humbly submit that upon considering the
Representation of the Complainant dated 31.01.2021
produced as Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. In
pursuance of the same, I have issued Notice dated
12.02.2023 calling upon the Complainant to produce
all the original documents within five days from the
date of receipt of the said Notice through 'Registered
Post Acknowledgement Due'. However, the
Complainant has not produced any original
documents, on the otherhand, produced photo copy
of RTCs. On verification of the records maintained in
our Office, it is noticed that none of the documents
produced by the Complainant tallied with the
documents maintained in our Office.
4. I humbly submit that upon verification of
documents maintained in our office, there is no
records are available pertaining to grant of land to
the Complainant. As such, I have issued an
Endorsement rejecting the prayer of the Complainant
on 25.01.2024. Copy of the said Endorsement is
produced herewith as Annexure-R1."
NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB
8. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the
decree has been obtained by the Civil Court by initiation of the
original proceeding, but, it is indicated as 'phut kharab lands' in
the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2002 passed by the Court
below in O.S.No.36/2017. The decree has been obtained by the
plaintiff, who is the complainant in this matter. But, State has
not been made as a party to the said proceeding.
9. Keeping in view of the aforesaid status and submission
made by learned Addl. Government Advocate, it is deemed
appropriate that the compliance affidavit, which is made by
respondent No.1/accused is taken on record and keeping in view
the provision of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
there is no consequence to consider this contempt proceeding.
Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
