IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATA CCC.NO.1099/2016 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI L N GOVINDA SWAMY S/O LATE RAMA BHOVI, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O NO.90/9, NACHANAHALLI, PEENYA, JP NAGAR, MYSORE (BY SRI.K SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI E RAMANA REDDY, IAS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 ...COMPLAINANT 2. SRI RAMESH BABU T TAHSILDAR, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE (BY SRI.D.NAGARAJ, AGA) ...ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13813/2008 FOR NOT RESTORING KHATHA AND RTC INFAVOUR OF THE COMPLAINANT'S FAMILY IN RESPECT OF SY. NOS.52 MEASURING 1.34 ACRES, SY. NO.61 MEASURING 1.35 ACRES AND SY. NO.82 MEASURING 10 ACRES OF DATTAGALLI VILLAGE, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The basis of the present contempt petition is alleged breach and non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 08.07.2009 in the connected writ petition whereby there was a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner within the prescribed time limit.
2. We have heard Mr.K.Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr.D.Nagaraj, learned AGA appearing for the accused.
3. As such, if the date of the order is considered, in any case, time limit for initiation of the action as provided under Section 20 has expired. At the same time it appears that, complainant did file contempt petition being CCC No.806/2009 but at the relevant point of time since the appeal was preferred against the decree in the civil suit, this Court declined to take any further action in the contempt petition.
4. Thereafter, it appears that, in the appeal proceedings, the delay was condoned and the complainant approached before this Court against the order of condonation of delay and this Court set aside the order of appellate Court for condonation of delay against which, the SLP was preferred and the SLP was also dismissed. The resultant situation is that the decree stands. Since the period has expired of one year, it would be for the complainant to seek a fresh direction of this Court in writ jurisdiction. At this stage, Mr.K.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the complainant seeks permission to withdraw the petition with a view to move appropriate Court for suitable direction.
5. Permission is granted.
6. Disposed of as withdrawn.
However, it is observed, if any petition is filed, the rights and contentions of both the parties are kept open to be considered in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-