IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.1877 OF 2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI.NARAYANAPPA SON OF MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT BETTA HALASUR JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 157.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI ERANNA.G SON OF GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE BYATHA POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 089.
...COMPLAINANT (BY SRI:J.C.KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI MANJUNATH MAJOR THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU-560 064.
2. SRI MANJUNATH TAVANE MAJOR THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS YALAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU-560 064.
...ACCUSED (BY SRI:SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR A1 AND A2) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 FOR HAVING WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION IN CCC NOS.1828 OF 2017 (CIVIL) DATED 16.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND AS WELL IN WRIT PETITION NO.52022 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) DATED 13.06.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
***** THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that the order dated 13.06.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.52022 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 16.01.2018 passed in CCC No.1828 of 2017 by the learned Division Bench, have been disobeyed.
2. In terms whereof, in Writ Petition No.52022 of 2015, respondent Nos.5 and 6 were directed to complete the durasth and phodi work as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of issuance of certified copy of this order. CCC No.1828 of 2017 was disposed off by recording the statement made by accused No.2 that he would comply with the directions issued by this Court within four weeks from that date. Since the same have not been complied with, the instant petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by accused No.2. He has narrated the entire events that have taken place. He has stated that the proposal to comply with the order was also sent to the concerned authorities. Thereafter, the Joint Director of Land Records has communicated that the land of the complainant is within 18 kilometers of the territorial jurisdiction of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Therefore, there is a need to verify the genuineness of the grants by the competent authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner. That the Assistant Commissioner has not verified the genuineness of the grant. Therefore, when the grant itself is in doubt, the question of doing durasth and phodi work would not arise for consideration. Consequently, an endorsement is also been issued to the complainant with the said facts in terms of Annexure-R1 indicating that the earlier proceedings were without the knowledge of the present state of affairs of the lands in question. That the lands are Government lands. Until and unless, the complainant is able to satisfy that there is a lawful grant in his name, no mandamus would lie.
4. On hearing learned Counsel, we do not find it appropriate to proceed further in the matter.
5. The learned Single Judge has ordered to complete the durasth and phodi work. Apparently, the genuineness of the grant were not the subject matter for adjudication before the learned Single Judge. On the assumption that the grants are genuine and the only grievance of the petitioner is failure of the accused to do durasth and phodi work, that a writ of mandamus was issued.
6. In view of the present counter affidavit being filed in the Court, wherein the grants made to the petitioner itself is sought to be questioned as not true and honest grants, we do not find that there is any disobedience committed by the accused. Until and unless the complainant is able to satisfy to the authorities that the grants are genuine and in accordance with law and issued by the appropriate authority, the complainant would not have any right, title or interest over the same. Even otherwise, since an endorsement has been issued, it cannot be said that contempt has arisen. It is suffice to hold that there are no grounds to proceed further.
Hence, the proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-