Karnataka High Court
Sri M Vasantha Kumar vs Sri Ashok Kumar Mannoli on 13 February, 2013
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B SREENIVASE GOWDA
CCC [Civil] Nos. 1153-1155 of 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M VASANTHA KUMAR
S/O LATE B MALLOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.47, K.R. LAYOUT
28TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS
J.P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078
2. MR. G.K. JANARDHAN RAO
S/O MR G N KRISHNOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.203
KRISHNA RESIDENCY
7TH A CROSS, K.R. LAYOUT
J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078
3. MRS PADMAVATHI J RAO
W/O MR G K JANARDHAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.203
KRISHNA RESIDENCY
7TH A CROSS, K.R. LAYOUT
J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078 ... COMPLAINANTS
[By Sri P Krishnappa, Adv. &
Sri K Bhanu Prasad, Adv.]
2
AND:
1. SRI ASHOK KUMAR MANNOLI
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE
2. SRI BHARATH LAL MEENA
THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
BANGALORE
3. SRI VENKATACHALAPATHY
THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
BANGALORE ... ACCUSED
THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT BY THE COMPLAINANTS, PRAYING TO
INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT IN WILLFULLY DISOBEYING
THE ORDERS OF THIS COURT, DATED 01.07.2011 IN W.P. NOS.
9612-9614/2011 (LA-BDA) AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND TO PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDERS WHICH ARE NECESSARY SINCE THE
RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE APPLICATIONS DATED
13.10.2011 AND 16.03.2012 FOUND AT ANNEXURE - B & C AND
ETC.,
THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Complainants are the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9612- 9614/2011 (LA-BDA), though the writ petitions were rejected as per the order dated 01.07.2011, nevertheless this court made an observation reading as under :-
"11. It is however, made clear that if the respondent - authorities suo motu are of the opinion that the scheduled properties would not be required for the purpose of implementation of the scheme, then in that case, the respondents would be at liberty to delete the said scheduled properties from acquisition and this order would not come in the way of the respondents taking such a decision."
2. It is the version of the complainants that they have filed applications seeking for deletion of their land from the purview of acquisition etc., but that has not been considered or acceded to, though the acquisition of subject lands has been quashed in subsequent proceedings etc. 4
3. If acquisition proceedings themselves have been quashed, then the question of withdrawal does not arise. There is nothing to be examined in these contempt petitions, hence dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NG*