Karnataka High Court
Dr Shreyans vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2018
Bench: Vineet Kothari, R.Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
CCC No.200111/2017 (CIVIL)
Between:
Dr. Shreyans
S/o Prafulchand Kothari
Aged about 39 years
Occ: Medical Practitioner
R/o House No.1-45,
Court Road,
Kalaburagi-585102.
... Complainant
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through its Secretary
Sri Anjum Parvej
Department of Urban Development
M.S. Building
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Shri Ujjwal Kumar Ghosh
The Deputy Commissioner
Date of order: 26.03.2018 CCC 200111/2017
Dr. Shreyans Vs The State of Karnataka and
others
2
Gulbarga
Mini Vidhanasoudha
Kalaburagi-585102.
3. Pommala Sunil Kumar
The Commissioner
Corporation of City of Kalaburagi-585102
4. Shri Shahi Kumar N.
The Superintendent of Police
Kalaburagi-585102.
... Accused
(By Sri R.V. Nadagouda, AAG for A1, A2 and A4;
Sri P.S.Malipatil, Advocate for A3)
This CCC is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the
Constitution of India, praying to initiate proceedings for
contempt of Court (Civil) against the accused herein for
willful disobedience and for showing utter disrespect to the
dignity of this Court for the violation and non-compliance of
the direction issued in the Final Order dated 27.02.2013 in
W.P.No.100068/2013, the certified copy of which is at
Annexure-A and to punish the accused appropriately.
This CCC coming on for orders this day,
VINEET KOTHARI J., made the following:
ORDER
Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for Complainant Mr. R.V. Nadagouda, AAG for A1, A2 and A4 Mr. P.S.Malipatil, Advocate for A3 Date of order: 26.03.2018 CCC 200111/2017 Dr. Shreyans Vs The State of Karnataka and others 3
1. In the present contempt petition arising out of the order of learned Single Judge dated 27.02.2013, the learned Single Judge had made the following directions in Paragraph No.3 of the order dated 27.02.2013:
"3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that it is true that they intend to acquire the petitioners' properties for the purposes of widening the road. They submit that they will not take possession of the petitioners' properties nor demolish the petitioners' properties forcibly without initiating acquisition proceedings. The authorities are in the process of collecting requisite information and once all the information is available to them, they will proceed to acquire the land under the provisions of land acquisition Act, 1894 and hear the petitioners thereafter, pass award paying them compensation. The apprehension of the petitioners that the respondents are taking the law to their hands and attempting to take away the petitioners' properties except in accordance with law is without any substance. In the light of the Date of order: 26.03.2018 CCC 200111/2017 Dr. Shreyans Vs The State of Karnataka and others 4 aforesaid stand of the respondents, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) The writ petitions are allowed in part.
b) The respondents shall not take possession or demolish the properties of the petitioners without initiating acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the properties shall be acquired in accordance with law."
2. The respondent No.3 was called upon to explain the situation and accordingly Mr. P. Sunil Kumar, IAS, Joint Director (Reforms), Karnataka Municipal Data Society, Bengaluru, who was holding the charge of Commissioner of the respondent - Corporation of City, Kalaburagi has filed this affidavit before this Court today and in Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of his affidavit dated 24.03.2018 he has stated that no portion of the petitioner's property was acquired and the initial acquisition was later on de-notified. Date of order: 26.03.2018 CCC 200111/2017
Dr. Shreyans Vs The State of Karnataka and others 5
3. He has further stated in his Affidavit that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence of his being owner of the municipal land in Sy.No.1-46/B, Sy.No.1- 46/C, Sy.No.1-46/D measuring 3122 sq.ft., 240 sq.ft. and 240 sq.ft. respectively and as to what portion of his land was supposedly utilized by the authorities of the Corporation of City, Kalaburagi for road widening. Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the said Affidavit are quoted below for ready reference:
"xiv. I state that on plain reading of the petition and all the representations made, the petitioner has not stated as to when the property of the petitioner was utilized or acquired for the purpose of widening of the road. In fact, the first representation made by the petitioner as per Annexure-B made on 11/04/2016, the petitioner is only making a claim to the Respondents Authorities to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land as per law and to pay compensation. There no mention of the alleged fact that the Respondents having utilized his land for widening of the road from the date of passing of Date of order: 26.03.2018 CCC 200111/2017 Dr. Shreyans Vs The State of Karnataka and others 6 the final order to the date of filing of the first representation on 11/04/2016 even though the road widening was complete as on June 2014. The petitioner seems to have woken up after a period of two years from the completion of the road widening and seems to agitate his supposed right for acquisition of the land even though the said land is not required for widening of the road.
xv. I state that the petitioner has not produced any documents to evidence the fact that he is the owner of the Land in Municipal No.1-46/B, 1- 46/C and 1-46/D measuring 3122 sq.ft., 240 sq.ft, and 240 sq.ft respectively and as to what portions of the said land are supposedly utilized by the authorities and as to the date on which such utilizations have been made. Without any specific statements, the petitioner's claim that the respondents have committed contempt of the orders of this Hon'ble Court is unsuitable and that I cannot be held guilty of contempt of Court. The notifications annexed clearly indicate that the lands of the petitioner has been dropped from acquisition even before filing of the writ petition.
Wherefore, I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to drop the Date of order: 26.03.2018 CCC 200111/2017 Dr. Shreyans Vs The State of Karnataka and others 7 contempt proceedings against me; with exemplary costs."
4. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that it is a question of fact and would require an enquiry in the matter and for that the petitioner has a liberty to establish before the competent authorities or any competent civil Court the exact extent of his title land and utilization of any portion of the said land by the respondent-authorities of the Corporation of City, Kalaburagi and then claim compensation, if any. The said exercise cannot be undertaken in the contempt jurisdiction in the present case.
5. The facts stated in the Affidavit filed by Mr. P. Sunil Kumar, IAS are taken on record and the copy of the same has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Date of order: 26.03.2018 CCC 200111/2017
Dr. Shreyans Vs The State of Karnataka and others 8
6. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, we are not inclined to proceed further with the contempt petition. The same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
swk