IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA C.C.C.No.1225/2017 (Civil) BETWEEN:
C.H. Rama Naika, S/o late Mahalinga Naika. Aged about 64 years, R/at “Sri Sai Matha”, Kodiyelu, Malady Village, P.O. Madanthyar – 574 224. Belthangady Taluk, D.K. District. …Complainant (By Sri M. Sudhakar Pai, Advocate) AND:
Sri H.K. Thippeswamy, Tahsildar, Belthangadi Taluk, P.O. Belthangady – 574 214, D.K. District. … Accused (By Sri D. Nagaraj, AGA) This C.C.C. is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of Constitution of India, praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused and punish him in accordance with law for his deliberate disobedience to the final order dated 27.7.2016 in W.P.No.38990/2016 (SC/ST) passed by this Hon’ble Court.
This C.C.C. coming on for orders this day, B.S. Patil J, made the following:
O R D E R This contempt petition is filed alleging violation of the direction issued by this Court on 27.7.2016 in W.P.No.38990/2016. By the order referred to above, this Court has directed the Tahsildar, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District to examine the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner to the Tahsildar and take consequential action on or before 30.9.2016 and the outcome of the action taken shall be communicated to the complainant on or before 7.10.2016.
2. Sri H.K. Thippeswamy, Tahsildar, Belthangady Taluk, who is arraigned as accused in this contempt petition is no longer serving as Tahsildar, Belthangady Taluk. Therefore, the present Tahsildar has filed counter affidavit bringing to the notice of the Court that the proceedings to be conducted as per the applications submitted by the complainant was under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for which the Assistant Commissioner was the competent authority and not the Tahsildar. He has further contended that the Assistant Commissioner has already initiated proceedings in this connection.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent also submits that such proceedings have been initiated and action will be taken in accordance with law expeditiously.
4. In light of the above, we are of the view that this contempt petition cannot be continued against the respondent Tahsildar, as he does not have any jurisdiction or authority in law to pass any orders in the matter. Hence this contempt proceedings are dropped by placing on record the submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate and also in light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MD