Karnataka High Court
Sri A Boopathi vs Ms Sushma Godbole on 11 April, 2023
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
-1-
CCC No.1017 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No.1017 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI A BOOPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE T. M. ANJINEYALU,
R/O SHETTIGERE VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK,
BANGALORE.
ALSO AT NO.17,
CLARKE ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 005.
Digitally signed ...COMPLAINANT
by MALATESH K
C (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. MS. SUSHMA GODBOLE,
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. B.M. VIJAYASHANKAR,
DELETED VCO DATED 24.06.2019
3. MANJUNATH.B.R
DEPUTY SECRETARY-1,
-2-
CCC No.1017 of 2019
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560020.
4. MR.SANDEEP SINGH,
VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
TARABANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 090.
5. DR. RAJKUMAR KHATRI,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560005.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR A1, A3 AND A5; A4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 31/01/2023 DISMISS THE
CONTEMPT PETITION AS NOT PRESSED AGAINST A2)
****
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
PRAYING TO PASS NECESSARY ORDER AND TAKE ACTION
AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH THEM FOR COMMITTING
CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT FOR WILLFULLY VIOLATING AND
DISOBEYING THE INTERIM ORDERS DATED 24.03.2014
(ANNEXURE-A), 29.04.2014 (ANNEXURE-B) AND 31.05.2019
(ANNEXURE-C) PASSED IN W.P.No.41244/2013(KLR) AND
W.P.No.4620/2014.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR "TO HEAR AND FRAME THE
CHARGE" THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CCC No.1017 of 2019
ORDER
The present Civil Contempt Petition is filed by the complainant under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against accused, alleging wilful disobedience of the interim Orders dated 24.03.2014, 29.04.2014 and 31.05.2019 passed in W.P.No.41244/2013 and W.P.No. 4620/2014. The complainant had filed the aforementioned writ petitions against the directions issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North, in Case No.(33):No.RRT(2)(NA) CR-1030/2009-10 and Case No.(35):No.RRT(2)(NA) CR-1028/2009-10, dated 04.01.2013.
2. It is the case of the complainant that, in W.P.No.41244/2013 and W.P.No.4620/2014, the learned single Judge while issuing notice to the learned High Court Government Pleader, granted interim order as prayed for, staying further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure 'AH' so far as it relates to the directions issued in case Nos.33 and 35, for a period of eight weeks. By the order dated 29.04.2014, -4- CCC No.1017 of 2019 the said interim order was extended till next date of hearing. On 31.05.2019, the interim order was extended until further orders. When things stood thus, during fourth week of January 2019, complainant received a phone call from one of his acquaintance in the locality where the subject property is situated, informing the complainant that certain people are fencing a portion of the subject property on the eastern side facing the road leading to Sadahalli and that they have also put a board in the portion fenced stating that 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.80 belongs to Government and that unauthorized entry is prohibited. Complainant also received a phone call from one Mr.Ravi informing that the Village Accountant, Tarabanahalli, viz., Mr. Sandeep Singh and his men have fenced the eastern portion of the subject property. Said Ravi also informed that he is acquainted closely with the Village Accountant and that he will arrange for a meeting with Village Accountant regarding removal of the fencing. When the complainant visited the subject property, found that eastern portion of the subject property facing the road leading to Sadahalli and abutting the said road had been fenced in zig zag shape, thereby, blocking the entire frontage of the subject property facing the road -5- CCC No.1017 of 2019 leading Sadahalli. The aforesaid illegal action of fencing a portion of 11 guntas of the subject property has been done by the Mr.Sandeep Singh, Village Accountant, Tarabanahalli i.e., accused No.4 and his men. Thereafter, a board has been put up in the fenced portion stating that 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.80 is gomala land belonging to the Government. At the bottom of the board, it is written that action has been taken as per the Orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru urban District viz., accused No.2 herein. He has produced the photographs as per Annexures-E, E1 to E3. Thereby, it is contended that accused No.4 has violated the orders passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, sought to take action against the accused.
3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the accused persons entered appearance. In the affidavit filed before this Court, the Special Deputy Commissioner has contended that he has not passed any order directing to fence the subject property and has not violated the interim Orders dated 24.03.2014, 29.04.2014 and 31.05.2019 passed in W.P.No. 41244/2013 and W.P.No.4620/2014. It is further -6- CCC No.1017 of 2019 stated that, in order to verify the allegation made in the present contempt petition, the Revenue Inspector, Doddajala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, was sent by the Tahsildar to the spot i.e., Sy.No.80, for verification. A mahazar was drawn by the Revenue Inspector and the Village Accountant on 20.07.2019, wherein, the villagers have stated that Sy.No.80 of Shettigere village is originally Government Gomala and case is being heard in proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of KLR Act. The Revenue Department has not put up any name board or fence in the survey number. The mahazar is duly signed by the villagers. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has issued an endorsement to the complainant informing that the Revenue Inspector Report in the proposed land bearing Sy.No.80/P11 and 80(P)- 0.11 guntas of land situated at Shettigere village, has no name boards, barbed wire and fencing is not found. It is further stated that RTC records made on the basis of concocted grants still continues and hence there is no violation of the interim order passed by this Court.
4. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Village Account, accused No.4, filed an affidavit dated 21.03.2023, wherein, at paragraphs 5 and 6, it is specifically stated as under:
-7-CCC No.1017 of 2019 "5. I most respectfully submit that the Complainant in the present Contempt Petition has alleged that myself H. Sandeep Singh, Village Accountant of Tarabanahalli Circle, Bengaluru North and another person who claims himself to be one Rajanna have illegally encroached upon the property of the complainant and have put a compound wall across the property in question. The said allegations are baseless and false. In this regard, I most respectfully submit as under:
"I have been arrayed as 4th Respondent/ Accused No.4 in the above Contempt Proceedings showing me as the Village Accountant of Tarabanahalli Circle, Bengaluru North Taluk. I was performing my duties as Village Accountant of Tarabanahalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk from the Month of May 2016 to January 2020. The Complainant has alleged that there is a willful disobedience of the Interim orders dated 24.03.2014, 29.04.2014 and 31.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.41244/2013 and Writ Petition No.4620/2014. The immovable property involved in the conflict in the aforesaid Writ Petition is a land in Survey -8- CCC No.1017 of 2019 No.80/P-11 and 80/P-7 of Shettigere village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Shettigere village comes within the Revenue Jurisdiction of Doddajala Circle and does not come within the jurisdiction of Tarabanahalli Circle.
Therefore, I had no jurisdiction nor Authority or in right to do anything pertaining to a property situated at Shettigere village, I humbly submit that I am wrongly arrayed as the Respondent in the above matter and in fact the Officials of Doddajala Circle ought to have been made party proceedings, if the Complainant has got in grievance against them.
6. Without prejudice to the aforementioned facts, I most respectfully submit that the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District at an undisputed point of time had filed one Affidavit before this Hon'ble Court, wherein, after conducting due enquiry the following facts were brought to the Notice of this Hon'ble Court.
"I submit that in Compliance of the Orders of this Hon'ble Court the Village Accountant of Shettigere village, Jala-1 -9- CCC No.1017 of 2019 hobli, and the Revenue Inspector, Yelahanka Taluk, Yelahanka and the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, once again visited the Survey No.80 of Shettigere village verified and inspected spot and ascertained the ownership of the compound wall alleged to be existing in the aforesaid Survey Number 80 of Shettigere village. The Revenue Inspector of Yelahanka Hobli, conducted the spot mahazar and spot inspection of the said occupant and possessor one Mr. Rajanna of the said portion of land came forward and has given a statement detailing the claiming ownership of the aforesaid compound wall and property therein. On enquiry, as to whether he has obtained the license from the Authorities for construction of the aforesaid compound wall, he has furnished Form 11B issued under Rule 30(7) of the Karnataka Grama Panchayath Rules and Form No.9 Register Extract to claim ownership of the Compound wall.
Further he has also furnished the
receipt for having paid the tax in
respect of the aforesaid land issued
- 10 -
CCC No.1017 of 2019
under Form 3 of Rule 20 by the
Doddajala Grama Panchayath. Further, he has also furnished extract of Register of Form No.9 (Rule 28 Register) for the period 2017-18. On further enquiry, he stated that pursuant to the Orders in Writ Petition No.287/2019 (KLR-RR) dated 27.03.2019, to M. Rajanna S/o Munishappa, having entered into agreement, on 09.08.2017, to the extent of one acre of land, the said M. Rajanna, thereafter has constructed a compound wall in respect of one acre of land. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the compound wall which is claimed to be in existence by the Complainant has been constructed by a private party. As-on the date, the aforesaid Rajanna S/o Muniswamy, who claims to have built the compound wall has not produced any permission for building the Compound wall. Hence, necessary action in accordance with law will be initiated in respect of the aforesaid construction of compound wall. The above facts and the Annexure, clarify makes it clear that the Revenue
- 11 -CCC No.1017 of 2019
Authorities have not built the compound wall.
The copies of the Spot Inspection
Report and copy of Form 111-B, copy of
Tax paid receipt, copy of Form No.9
register are produced herewith at
Annexure-R3, series."
5. At paragraph 7 of the aforesaid affidavit, it is stated that "I have not violated any interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court. In fact, the interim order passed by this Hon'ble court of which breach is alleged in the present contempt petition has merged with the final order passed by this Hon'ble Court and subsequent to the final order passed by this Hon'ble Court, fresh proceedings under Section 136(3) has been initiated by the office of Special Deputy Commissioner, rank of Indian Administrative Services and the same are pending for adjudication till date". Thereby, he sought to drop the proceedings.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
- 12 -CCC No.1017 of 2019
7. Sri Anandarama K, learned counsel for complainant, reiterating the averments made in the contempt petition, contended with vehemence that, inspite of the interim orders dated 24.03.2014, 29.04.2014 and 31.05.2019 passed in W.P.No.41244/2013 and W.P.No.4620/2014, accused No.4 has fenced the subject property and erected the name board as is evident from Annexures-E1 to E3 and thereby, the order passed by the learned single Judge has been violated and therefore, accused is liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. He further contended that, in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Village Accountant, nowhere they have stated that they have not erected the compound wall or any boards. Thereby, it is a fit case to frame the Charge.
8. Per contra, Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that the very contempt petition filed by the complainant alleging violation of the interim order in not maintainable. He further contended that the boards seen in Annexures-E1 to E3 are not erected either by the Deputy Commissioner or by the Village Accountant, as there is no date
- 13 -CCC No.1017 of 2019
on the Boards. The Deputy Commissioners, in the affidavit dated 23.07.2019, and the Village Accountant in the affidavit dated 21.03.2023, in categorical terms stated that they have not violated any interim order passed by this Court. At paragraph 7 of the affidavit, the Village Accountant has specifically stated that he has not violated any interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court. In fact, the interim order passed by this court of which breach is alleged in the present contempt petition has merged with the final order passed in the writ petitions, and subsequently, fresh proceedings under Section 136(3) has been initiated by the office of Special Deputy Commissioner and the same are pending for adjudication.
Absolutely no case is made out by the complainant and this is nothing but misusing the contempt proceedings.
9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for parties, the only point that would arise for our consideration in the present contempt petition is:
"Whether the complainant has made out a case against accused No.4 to initiate contempt proceedings for violation of the interim order dated 24.03.2014, extended on 29.04.2014 and further extended on 31.05.2019 passed in W.P.No.41244/2013 and W.P.No.4620/2014?"
- 14 -
CCC No.1017 of 2019
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record, carefully.
11. This Court, though, by the Order dated 24.06.2019, deleted accused Nos.2 to 4 from the array of parties, again, on the application filed by learned counsel for complainant, recalled the Order dated 24.06.2019.
12. It is very interesting to note that complainant has stated that he came to know that accused No.4-Village Accountant has violated the interim order granted by this Court, by putting up fence in the subject property and one Mr. Ravi informed the said fact to the complainant stating that on the eastern side facing the road leading to Sadahalli fencing is done and that they have also put up a board in the portion fenced stating that 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.80 belongs to Government. Said Ravi also informed the complainant that he is acquainted with the Village Accountant and he will arrange for a meeting with the Village Accountant. If the interim order was shown to the Village Accountant and still he proceeded to fence the subject property, there was no need for the intervention of third party
- 15 -
CCC No.1017 of 2019viz., Ravi. If Mr. Ravi has informed the complainant that he is acquainted with the Village Accountant and can arrange for a meeting, then, complainant should have filed an affidavit of Mr.Ravi to that effect. No such affidavit is filed. It is further alleged in the present contempt petition that some boards have been erected in the subject property showing the subject property as Government property and it vests with the State Government. But no date is forthcoming on the boards, as could be seen from Annexures-E1 to E3. Whether the boards were erected prior to granting of interim order or later, is not forthcoming.
13. Though learned counsel for complainant submits that the boards were erected after passing of the interim order, the same is denied by the Deputy Commissioner by specifically stating in the affidavit that, he has not passed any order directing to fence the subject property or to erect boards. He has also stated that RTC records made on the basis of concocted grants still continues and hence there is no violation of the interim order passed by this Court.
- 16 -
CCC No.1017 of 2019
14. The Deputy Commissioner who is the head of the concerned District under the Land Revenue Act who has come before the Court and filed an affidavit that he has not directed any officer to put the fence. The Village Accountant would not dare to make fence without permission from the Tahsildar. No such proceedings is produced before this Court.
15. Though it is alleged that boards are erected in the subject property after interim order passed by this Court, learned Government Advocate submits that as on today, there is no such board existing in the subject property and the boards were never erected either by the Village Accountant or the Deputy Commissioner or any Government officials. Thereby, the authorities, in categorical terms have denied the erection of boards or fencing of the subject property. In the absence of any material produced before the Court, based only on photographs-Annexures E1 to E3, this Court cannot proceed, to hold that accused have violated the interim order.
16. Very curiously, the learned single Judge in W.P.No.41244/2013 and W.P.No.4620/2014 filed by the complainant by the Order dated 25.09.2019 has quashed the Order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
- 17 -
CCC No.1017 of 2019North, in Case No.(33):No.RRT(2)(NA) CR-1030/2009-10 and Case No.(35):No.RRT(2)(NA) CR-1028/2009-10, dated 04.01.2013. The Deputy Commissioner and the Village Accountant, in categorical terms stated on oath that they have not violated any interim order and have not fenced the subject property and erected boards therein. If the Government has not done the fencing and erected the boards, then, it is a private litigation between the complainant and the person who violated the interim order. Thereby, the complainant has misused the contempt petition.
17. On careful perusal of the entire material on record, it clearly depicts that in all fairness, as soon as final order passed by the learned single Judge dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.No.41244/2013 and W.P.No.4620/2014, complainant ought to have withdrawn the contempt petition. But still he is proceeding with the matter alleging violation of the interim order which has already merged with the final order. Since no material has been produced to show that accused No.4 or other Government officials have violated the interim order granted by
- 18 -
CCC No.1017 of 2019the learned single Judge, question of initiation of contempt proceedings would not arise.
18. It is clear from the material on record that the complainant is taking advantage of the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act to unnecessarily pressurize the officials by dubious method. Thereby, complainant is liable to pay costs of `50,000/- payable to the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru.
19. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER The Civil Contempt Petition is dismissed with costs of `50,000/- payable by the complainant to the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and produce the acknowledgment for having paid the cost with the Registry, failing which, post this matter for further orders, after two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
- 19 -CCC No.1017 of 2019 BVJ & VNTJ: CCC No.1017/2019
25.05.2023 ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO This Court by the order dated 11th April, 2023 while dismissing the contempt petition, has imposed costs of Rs.25,000/. But, in the order, it is wrongly typed as Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, learned counsel for the complainant has filed memo dated 25.5.2023 'for being spoken to' for rectification of the typographical mistake.
Accepting the memo, costs imposed is modified and the complainant shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) to the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru forthwith. To that extent, the order dated 11th April 2023 is modified.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-