Karnataka High Court
Rajegowda vs Sri Mahendra on 11 March, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10213-DB
CCC No. 981 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 981 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. RAJEGOWDA
S/O LATE MUDLIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
2. G S GOVINDEGOWDA
S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3. RAMEGOWDA
S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4. G N GOVINDEGOWDA
Digitally signed S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA
by SUMATHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
KANNAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5. HARISHA
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE SOWBHAGYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6. HANUMANTHEGOWDA
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
7. CHANDREGOWDA
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10213-DB
CCC No. 981 of 2023
8. KANTHEGOWDA
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9. TAYAMMA
W/O KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O GULUVINAATTIGUPPE VILLAGE
10. RAMEGOWDA
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
11. THAMMANNEGOWDA
S/O LATE KULLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
12. MEENAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE SWAMYGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
GULUVINAATTIGUPPE VILLAGE
HOSA-AGRAHARA HOBLI
KRISHNARAJANAGARA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
PINCODE-571601.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. MILASH - ADVOCATE FOR SRI. YOGANNA K.P. -
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MAHENDRA
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
THE KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD
NO.4, H R B C SUB DIVISION
DODDAKADANURU VILLAGE
HALLY MYSORE HOBLI
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573210.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10213-DB
CCC No. 981 of 2023
2. D P MANJUNATH
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AT HASSAN
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE AT HASSAN
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
3. SRI K V RAJENDRA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU-571401.
4. MAHESHA
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD
ANANDRAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE CITY
PINCODE-560001.
... ACCUSED
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU.
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K S BHEEMAIAH - ADVOCATE ACCUSED NO.1 & 4;
SRI. HARISHA A S - AGA FOR ACCUSED NOS.2, 3 AND
PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO.5)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, AND ALSO UNDER ARTICLE 215
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE
FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR THE
DISOBEYING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P.NO.2589/2023 ON DATED 09.03.2023.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:10213-DB
CCC No. 981 of 2023
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 is initiated by
complainants against respondents for willful disobedience
of the order passed by the learned single Judge in
W.P.No.2589/2023 (LA-RES) dated 09.03.2023.
2. Learned counsel Sri Yoganna K.P for complainants
is on record but represented by learned counsel Sri Milash.
Learned counsel Sri K.S.Bheemaiah for accused Nos.1 and
4 is present. Learned AGA Sri Harisha A.S for accused
Nos.2, 3 and proforma respondent No.5 is also present.
3. The last paragraph of the order rendered by the
learned single Judge indicates as 'Writ petition is disposed
off. For accomplishing the task, a period of three months
is granted and delay if brooked may entail the respondents
with heavy costs payable personally by them. It is open to
NC: 2025:KHC:10213-DB
the answering respondents to solicit any
information/documents from the side of the petitioners for
due consideration of his representation. However, in the
guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked. All
contentions are kept open'.
4. Learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 submits
that he has filed counter affidavit dated 21.09.2024. At
paragraph No.5 of the said affidavit, it indicates as 'In
response to the letter addressed by Managing Director of
the CNNL-accused No.4 to him and to the accused No.3-
the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, and also letter from the
Executive Engineer of CNNL stating that, to initiate
acquisition proceedings it will take more time and as such
the CNNL has decided to buy the lands of the complainants
herein by direct purchase. Accordingly, the Land
Acquisition Officer, has sent letter to the complainants and
requested them to provide the title deeds of their lands
and get the phodi and also obtain 11E sketch to get their
lands registered in the name of the Cauvery Neeravari
NC: 2025:KHC:10213-DB
Nigama Limited and thereafter the complainants herein
would be entitled for compensation for their lands'.
5. Learned AGA submits that the proceedings has
been initiated seeking for compensation in respect of
property bearing Sy.No.4/1 and 4/2 to the extent of 2.19
½ acres are herewith produced as Annexures-R3, R4 and
R5. The said properties are situated in the limit of K.R.Pet
taluk, Mandya District. He further submits that the said
property would come under purview of B Karab land.
6. However, 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, in paragraph 52 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
NC: 2025:KHC:10213-DB
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'.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid reliance rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present contempt
proceeding does not survive for consideration to take
action against accused. Accordingly, the contempt petition
is hereby closed.
SD/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
SD/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RJ
