IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CCC NO.1875 OF 2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SRI. V. SREENIVAS SON OF LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE GANIGARAPALYA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 109. ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. T.M. VIJAYABHASKARA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. B.M. VIJAYASHANKAR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BEYOND TALUK OFFICE K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
3. SRI. HARISH NAYAK ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN BEYOND TALUK OFFICE K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
4. SRI. MANJAPPA TAHSILDAR-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED CULTIVATION BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK TALUK OFFICE K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.
5. SRI. VARUN KUMAR RANGE FOREST OFFICER KAGGALIPURA RANGE BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 062. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5) THIS CONTEMPT PETITION 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 ALLOW THIS CONTEMPT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY PUNISH THE ACCUSED HEREIN FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.50179 TO 50267 OF 2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This contempt petition is filed on the ground that the ex parte interim order dated 14.01.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.50179-50267 of 2015 has been disobeyed. In terms whereof, the respondents therein were directed not to disposses the petitioners, if they are in possession, otherwise than under due process of law. Since, the same has been disobeyed, the instant petition is filed.
2. A counter affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar on 31.01.2019. He has also filed an additional counter affidavit dated 15.02.2019. On considering the same, we do not find any ground to proceed further.
3. The interim order is to the effect of directing the respondents not to disposses the petitioners, if they are in possession. Whether they are or not in possession is not for this Court to determine. It is for the concerned Court to record a finding as to who is in possession. Therefore, until and unless there is a clear order, it cannot be said that the accused has violated the same. Hence, we find no good ground to proceed further.
The proceedings are dropped.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE ST