IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NOS.1232-1233 OF 2017 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. SRI B. RAMAPPA SON OF PAKKIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE.
2. SRI B. BASAPPA SON OF PAKKIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: KUPPAGADDI VILLAGE SORAB TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
... COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI D. C. PARAMESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI MOHAN N. GANGOLLI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER SAGAR DIVISION, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.
2. SRI BHAGYAVANTHA MASUD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER ANAVATTI RANGE OFFICE SORAB TALUK:
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429.
3. MISS KAIKASHAN THE HAND GRANT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/TAHASILDAR SORAB TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
(A-3 IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.09.2018) (BY SRI A. C. BALARAJ, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER A1 AND A2) ... ACCUSED THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER AND DIRECTION DATED 08.07.1998 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.20520 AND 20521 OF 1998 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
***** THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This contempt petition is filed on the ground that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.07.1998, passed in Writ Petition Nos.20520 and 20521 of 1998, has been disobeyed.
2. In terms of the aforesaid order, the respondents were directed to consider Form No.50 said to have been filed by the writ petitioners and further that until the same is considered the petitioners shall not be dispossessed.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the Range Forest Officer, Annavatti Range, Sorab Taluk, Shivamogga. He has enclosed the photostat copy of the entire records pertaining to the lands in question. It is indicated in the Affidavit that Form No.50 filed by the writ petitioners has since been rejected. Therefore, we do not find that there is any contempt so far as non-consideration of Form No.50 is concerned.
4. So far as the subsequent direction with regard to the possession of the petitioners be protected until and unless Form No.50 is considered, since Form No.50 has been considered and rejected, the respondents are entitled in law to dispossess the petitioners in accordance with law, since the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the lands in question. Consequently, the contempt proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ