IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.1228 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
A. VENKATESH SON OF LATE B. ANNAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.206, KODIHALLY ULSOOR POST BENGALURU-560 008.
... COMPLAINANT (BY MISS:CHETHANA MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:B.S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. SUO ASSOCIATES) AND:
SMT. DR. N. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS COMMISSIONER OF BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD BENGALURU-560 017.
...ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.66 OF 2011 DATED 16.01.2012 WHEREIN THE ACCUSED WAS DIRECTED NOT TO DISTURB THE POSSESSION OF THE COMPLAINANT IN THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY OTHERWISE THAN UNDER DUE PROCESS OF LAW THAT IS IN TERMS OF THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT.
***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 16.01.2012 passed in Regular First Appeal No.66 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge, has been disobeyed.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge not to disturb the petitioners otherwise than under due process of law. That the accused is disturbing the possession of the complainant by dumping the materials by bringing it in a bulldozer.
3. On hearing learned Counsel, we do not find any merit in this petition. Firstly, the fact that the order was passed on 16.01.2012. This petition is filed after 7 years. The photographs relied upon do not indicate any immediate construction. It appears that the construction has been made from quite a long period of time. Secondly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.1580 of 1989, the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed. The property of the complainant was acquired by the respondent-BDA. The acquisition has not been challenged. It is a bare suit for permanent injunction. Therefore, it was rightly rejected, so also the appeal.
4. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a violation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The property does not belong to the complainant. Even the acquisition has not been challenged, but accepted. Hence, we find that no contempt arises.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-