IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NOs.1775-1776 OF 2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. E. H. LAKSHMAN SON OF LATE HONGYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SMT. PUSHPA WIFE OF E. H. LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1 5TH CROSS, RANGANATHAPURA SYNDICATE BANK COLONY KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560 079.
... COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI: SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI RAKESH SINGH, IAS COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
(BY SRI:B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE) ... ACCUSED THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SUMMON, PROSECUTE AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED- PERSON FOR HIS DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.26806 AND 26807 OF 2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
***** THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 09.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition Nos.26806 and 26807 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, restraining the second respondent from dispossessing the petitioner from the lands in question, has been disobeyed.
2. Various material has been produced to substantiate the said claim. The accused has also filed a counter affidavit which indicates that much prior to the grant of the interim order, the complainant was dispossessed in the manner known to law. In view of the continued interference by the complainant, even a police case has been filed before the Sub Inspector of Police, Tavarekere.
3. The same is disputed by the complainant’s Counsel by producing an endorsement issued by the Bengaluru Development Authority, with regard to the schedule properties.
4. Considering these contentions and keeping in mind the rival claims with regard to the interference and dispossession and in view of the fact that an ad-interim order has been passed, it is just and necessary that the said issue be agitated before the learned Single Judge. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that it is inappropriate to proceed further in the matter, in view of the conflicting claims on facts.
Hence, the petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-