IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NOs. 1169 AND 1348 OF 2016 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. GURAPPA SON OF LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT MULLUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 035.
2. NANJAPPA SON OF MUNISHAMI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT MULLUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI,BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 035.
... COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. BYRE REDDY M. S, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MR. RAMESH, MAJOR REVENUE INSPECTOR VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU – 560 036.
2. MR. TEJAS KUMAR, MAJOR TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK K. R. PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036.
3. MR. RANGANATH, MAJOR THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. MR SHANKAR, MAJOR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA K. G. ROAD, NEAR CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. M.V. JAYANTHI, MAJOR REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU REGION, BMTC BUS STOP SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU– 560 027.
6. HEMOJI NAYAK, MAJOR THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.
... ACCUSED (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE PROSECUTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ORDERS DATED 30/03/2015 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.4142 OF 2013, AND SENTENCE THEM FOR OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ETC.
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 30.03.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No.4142 of 2013 (KLR-RES), has been disobeyed.
2. In terms of the said order, the writ appeal was disposed off, to consider the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.3377 of 2006 dated 13.03.2007. In terms of the said order, the petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents therein to consider the request of the petitioner therein for issuance of a saguvali chit in respect of 1 acre of land.
3. Presently, respondent No.2 - Tahsildar has filed a memo enclosing an endorsement dated 22.12.2018 issued to the petitioners indicating compliance of the said order on the ground that the request cannot be granted.
The direction issued by this Court was to consider the request of the petitioners. The same having been considered, we find that there is no violation of the said order. Hence, the proceedings are dropped.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA