Karnataka High Court
Smt K G Lakshmi vs Sri Rajendra Kumar Kataria, Ias on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB
CCC No. 3 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
CCC NO. 3 OF 2024 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K. G. LAKSHMI
W/O. LATE K. G. GIRIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE WIFE
R/AT SEEGETHODU VILLAGE
GONIKOPPAL POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 213.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY MS. SWETA ROY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI L.S. CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KATARIA, IAS
CHAITHRA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
High Court
of Karnataka (LAND GRANTS AND LAND REVENUE)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO.505 AND 506, SACHIVALAYA
5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDINGS ANNEXE,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI VENKAT RAJA IAS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
AT MADIKERI - 571 201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB
CCC No. 3 of 2024
3. SRI S.N. NARAGUNDA
TAHASILDAR
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
AT SOMWARPET - 571 236.
4. SRI KIRAN GOWRAIAH
TAHASILDAR
KUSHALNAGAR TALUK
AT KUSHALNAGAR
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234.
...ACCUSED
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
WHERE IN SHE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED
TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 PASSED IN WP
18824/2017 (KLR-RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGLURU AND PUNISH
THE ACCUSED PERSONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB
CCC No. 3 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Following order was passed by learned Single Judge on
28.04.2017,
"The plea of the petitioner is that in terms
of the Annexures produced herein, it is the duty
of the State to grant the land to him.
2. The learned Government Advocate for
the respondents submits that the same would be
considered in the manner known to law.
3. In view of the above, the petition is
disposed off. Respondents are directed to
consider the grant of the land to the petitioner in
accordance with law."
2. This contempt petition came to be filed on 02.01.2024
alleging breach of the aforesaid order. The order related to
consideration by the respondents the grant of land to the petitioner.
There is no time limit specified by learned Single Judge for the
purpose of consideration.
NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB
3. Apart from the above aspect, it is manifest that the order was
passed on 28.04.2017 by learned Single Judge and the contempt
petition was filed after a gap of almost six and half years.
4. However, learned Additional Government Advocate
Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar invites attention of the court to the
memo dated 20.01.2025 along with which copy of the endorsement
dated 16.01.2025 is produced, whereby the application of the
complainant's husband came to be rejected on the ground that the
applicant was not an ex-serviceman. Be that as it may.
5. About the Endorsement dated 16.01.2025 learned advocate
Ms. Sweta Roy for the complainant vehemently submitted that it is
only after the contempt petition was filed, the endorsement came to
be passed by the authority. This aspect pales into insignificance
inasmuch as what was directed by learned Single Judge was
without any specification of time limit to consider the case of the
petitioner which was considered. Secondly the petition, as stated
above, is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB
6. The directions of the learned Single Judge has been
complied with as the case of the petitioner is considered.
7. In the aforesaid view, the court does not see any further
survival for this contempt petition, it is accordingly disposed of as
not surviving.
It will be open for the complainant to challenge the
endorsement, if so advised, by instituting independent proceedings
in accordance with law in respect of which, however, this Court
does not express any opinion on merit.
In view of disposal of the petition, the interlocutory
applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
CR
