Karnataka High Court
Lt.Col.(Retd) K.G.Uthaya vs Sri.Govindaraju on 20 December, 2021
Bench: S.Sujatha, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
C.C.C.No.774/2020
BETWEEN:
LT. COL. (RETD) K.G.UTHAYA
S/O LATE K. S. GANAPATHY,
AGED 70 YEARS,
FOUR WINDS, MYSORE ROAD,
MADIKERI 571 201,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SR.COUNSEL
A/W SRI SOMANATH M.BAKK, ADV. AND
SMT. ASHA.K.ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI.GOVINDARAJU
TAHSILDAR,
MAJOR BY AGE,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
2. SRI. SHIVAPPA
REVENUE INSPECTOR,
MAJOR BY AGE,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN,
RAVENUE OFFICE,
SUNITIKOPPA NAD,
SUNTIKOPPA 571238,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
2
3. SRI. K. A. THIMMAIAH,
MAJOR BY AGE,
S/O K. D. APPACHU,
CHINNI ESTATE, ATHUR NALLUR VILLAGE,
SUNTIKOPPA NAD,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT 571236.
4. SRI. K. A. CARIAPPA,
MAJOR BY AGE,
S/O K. D. APPACHU,
HARIMA ESTATE, NAKUR,
SUNTIKOPPA,
KODAGU DISTRICT 571237.
5. SRI. K. A. THAMMAIAH,
MAJOR BY AGE,
S/O K. D. APPACHU,
HARIMA ESTATE,
NAKUR, SUNITIKOPPA,
KODAGU DISTRICT 571237.
6. SRI. B. T. PURUSHOTHAM RAI
MAJOR BY AGE,
S/O THYAMPANNA RAI,
ATHUR NALLUR VILLAGE,
SUNTIKOPPA,
KODAGU DISTRICT 571236 ... ACCUSED
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO TAKE ACTION
AGAINST THE ACCUSED 1 TO 5 HEREIN UNDER CONTEMPT
OF COURTS ACT FOR VIOLATION THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT AT ANNEXURE-A TO CIRCUMVENT THE
JUDGMENT IN ANNEXURE-B AND SUCH OTHER ORDER OR
ORDERS MAY BE PASSED AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS
FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
S.SUJATHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant to take action against the accused Nos.1 to 6 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for alleged violation of the judgment of this court in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006 dated 12.09.2014 (reported in ILR 2015 KAR 701) to circumvent the judgment of this court in R.S.A.No.903/2015 dated 24.06.2019 as alleged.
2. The complainant claims to be a retired Army Officer. He filed O.S.No.140/2009 against the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein seeking for permanent injunction, which came to be dismissed, against which R.A.No.6/2013 was filed unsuccessfully. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed R.S.A.No.903/2015. The said appeal came to be allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Madikeri in O.S.No.140/2009 confirmed by the court of Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri by its judgment 4 dated 19.01.2015 in R.A.No.6/2013, thereby decreeing the suit of the complainant/plaintiff. Subsequently, I.A.No.1/2019 was filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein seeking for two months' time to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order passed in R.S.A.No.903/2015, which came to be disposed of, recording the undertaking of the complainant that the gate shall be kept open on the suit road and they will permit the respondent Nos.3 to 6 to use the road for another two months from the date of the said order.
3. It is the grievance of the complainant that instead of approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order passed in R.S.A.No.903/2015, they have approached the Tahsildar-respondent No.1 herein under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; though it was submitted by the complainant that the issue relating to 'Kadanga' has been decided by this court in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006 by its order dated 12.09.2014, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities 5 in considering the issue of 'Kadanga', the Tahsildar- respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the order dated 14.11.2019 in utter violation of the settled principles of law as envisaged in the said Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006.
4. It is pertinent to note that an appeal has been filed by the complainant against the said order dated 14.11.2019 before the Assistant Commissioner of Kodagu at Madikeri and the same is said to have been pending for consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that respondent No.1-Tahsildar has committed breach of the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006 in adjudicating upon the issue of 'Kadanga' though it was brought to his notice that no revenue authorities have competency to decide the same and the applicants therein/respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein ought to have been relegated to the civil court. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble 6 Apex Court in Pallav Sheth -vs- Custodian and Others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549, learned counsel submitted that the contempt proceedings are required to be initiated against the respondents herein.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record.
7. Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ("the Act", for brevity) reads thus:
"2. Definitions:
(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court."
8. Admittedly, in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006 referred to by the learned counsel for the complainant, the respondents herein were not the parties. In terms of Section 2(b) read with Section 10 of the Act, the contempt proceedings could be initiated 7 for willful disobedience or breach of any judgment, decree, direction, order writ or other process of a court or an undertaking given to a court. It is exfacie evident that there is no such willful disobedience or breach of the order of Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006 by the respondents, as alleged by the complainant. The said order dated 12.09.2014 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2006 is not a general declaration made by the court applicable to all cases notwithstanding the facts and circumstances of the case, which necessarily plays a fundamental role in applying the legal principles to the case. In other words, legal principles could be applied while considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case. There being no specific direction issued by this court to the respondents herein, nor any breach of such orders or directions as contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, we are not inclined to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
8
9. Nextly, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant relates to Section 20 of the Act, which deals with limitation for initiating contempt proceedings. The question of limitation not being before this court insofar as the contempt herein is concerned, with great respect, we hold that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant fairly submits that the schedule land involved in R.S.A.No.903/2015 concluded against the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein is not the same as that of the land now considered by respondent No.1- Tahsildar. It is further significant to note that the complainant having preferred an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar has now made a feeble attempt to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents which cannot be countenanced for the reasons aforesaid. The argument that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to decide the issue, may be a 9 ground for appeal which has already been initiated by the complainant. All the grounds now urged being the subject matter of the appeal, we find no reason to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents, moreover, the same is not coming within the ambit of Section 2(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, we dismiss the contempt petition. It is needless to observe that the Appellate Authority shall expedite the matter (appeal against the order dated 14.11.2019) and after hearing both sides shall pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law in an expedite manner.
In the result, the contempt petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-