Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

L M Cheluvaraje Gowda And Others vs Records And Other 3 Authorities To Conduct And Effect

High Court Of Karnataka|31 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

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.1176 OF 2017 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
L.M. CHELUVARAJE GOWDA SON OF MOGANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF BONDABOYINAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. ...COMPLAINANT (BY SRI:SYED AKBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:MAHANTESH S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. RATHNA THE TAHSILDAR K.R. PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 426.
2. SMT. HEMALATHA THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS MANDYA DIVISION MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426.
3. MANJUNATH THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. ...ACCUSED (BY SRI:SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TAKE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACTION AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED 1,2,3 FOR HAVING COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT WHO HAVE NOT OBEYED AND RESPECTED THE COURT PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.57761 OF 2016 DATED 06.01.2017, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.
***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR HEARING BEFORE FRAMING OF CHARGES THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 06.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.57761 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge, has been disobeyed.
2. In terms of the said order, a direction was issued to the Assistant Director of Land Records and other authorities to conduct and effect durasthi of lands in question within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Since the same has not been done, the instant petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavits have been filed by the accused on 11.09.2017, 13.10.2017, 23.10.2017 and 23.01.2018. It is indicated therein that in respect of the lands in question, a suit was pending in OS No.457 of 2013 filed by one Smt.K.T.Saroja against the complainant herein and his father one Mogana Gowda. A temporary injunction has been granted therein.
4. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the accused on 23.01.2018 at para 4, as under:
“I humbly submit that on the instruction of Tahsildar, Respondent No.1 have verified the grant records in respect of land in question. The said land was granted to one Syed Ali in the year 1960-61 in No.SPL DDR 40:60-61 dated 30.06.1961 in Sy.No.2, Block No.30 measuring 3 acres; whereas, the said land was granted to one Sri.Mogana Gowda S/o Sanne Gowda, the father of the complainant in No.LND CR 3058:1991-92 dated 24.09.1994 in Sy.No.2 Block No.1, land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas. As per the survey sketch available in my office, I have prepared a sketch which shows both extents are overlapping. Accordingly, I have submitted a report to the Tahsildar, 1st Respondent herein. Copy of the said report and the sketch prepared by me is produced herewith and marked as Annexures-R1 and R2. Under such circumstances, I pray that his Hon’ble Court may be pleased to drop the aforesaid contempt proceedings.”
5. On considering the same, we are of the view that there is a serious dispute with regard to the properties in question. It is stated that the grant records would indicate that the lands were granted to one Syed Ali in the year 1960-61 and the same lands had been granted to the father of the complainant in the year 1994. It is also stated that both the extent are overlapping. Therefore, the issue requires to be sorted out. Apparently, the said issue was not placed for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has merely proceeded on the request made by the petitioner to consider the application to effect the durasthi of the lands in question.
6. In view of the counter affidavits filed by the accused, we do not find that the order is capable of being complied with in view of the dispute as narrated by the accused. Hence, we do not find any grounds to proceed further.
The proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

L M Cheluvaraje Gowda And Others vs Records And Other 3 Authorities To Conduct And Effect

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
31 July, 2019
Judges
  • Ravi Malimath
  • H P Sandesh