IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.C.C.Nos.989/2017 & 1028/2017 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH S.K. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O SHESHAGIRIYAPPA 2. SRI. VASANTH @ V.S. HEGDE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SHESHARIGIYAPPA COMPLAINANTS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF KANUTHOTA AREHADA VILLAGE TALAGUPPA HOBLI SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577401.
...COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY T.P., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI TUSHAR B. HOSUR MAJOR, TAHSILDAR SAGAR TALUK, SAGAR SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401.
2. M. LOKESH S/O MALIGACHAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.D.NAGARAJ, AGA) ...ACCUSED THESE C.C.C. ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS FROM THE ACCUSED, INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED UNDER PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND PUNISH HIM FOR DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT, IN WRIT PETITION NO.51880/2016 DATED 15.11.2016.
THESE C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These contempt petitions are filed alleging violation of the direction issued by the Single Judge in W.P.No.51880/2016 dated 15.11.2016.
2. By the said order learned Single Judge having taken note of the fact that complainants had filed a suit in O.S.No.169/2000 seeking a judgment and decree of declaration as owners of the property and for permanent injunction and the fact that said suit though dismissed earlier, came to be decreed in R.A.No.273/2010 vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014, issued a direction to the respondent- Tahsildar to consider the request made by the complainants for change of entries in the revenue records. The Tahsildar did not consider the request and effect change in the revenue records of the land in question. Therefore, these contempt petitions have been filed.
3. Respondent was given time to report compliance. Today, learned AGA has filed additional counter affidavit stating interalia that both in Column Nos.9 and 12 of the RTC name of the complainants have been entered pursuant to decree passed in regular first appeal. Indeed copy of the RTC is also enclosed to the additional counter affidavit filed.
4. On perusal of the same, we find that both in Column Nos.9 and 12 of the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.80 of Arehada Village in Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga, names of the complainants have been incorporated as owners and cultivators respectively. Hence, we are of the view that there has been compliance of the direction issued by this Court.
5. At this stage, it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the complainants that suit schedule property was phoded and it was assigned new number as Sy.No.80/2 and that the said land was described as khuski land in the suit schedule. Therefore, the Tahsildar ought to have mentioned the correct survey number as ‘80/2’ and disclosed clearly that the land was a khuski land.
6. We are of the view that as there has been substantial compliance with the direction issued by this Court, this Court need not proceed with the contempt proceedings. It is open for the complainants to move the concerned authorities in this connection for appropriate relief. Reserving such liberty to complainants, these contempt proceedings are dropped.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE DR