Karnataka High Court
N Shivanna vs Sri C G Betsurmath Ias 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. 1072-1073 of 2012
BETWEEN:
1. N SHIVANNA
S/O LATE NANJANIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O # 2277, KALIDASA ROAD
V V MOHALLA
MYSORE CITY
2. N SRIKANTA
S/O LATE NANJANIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O # 2277, KALIDASA ROAD
V V MOHALLA
MYSOR CITY ... COMPLAINANTS
[By Sri P Mahesha, Adv. &
Sri Krishna R J, Adv.]
AND:
SRI C G BETSURMATH, IAS
THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
2
AUTHORITY, J L B ROAD
MYSORE ... ACCUSED
[By Sri T P Vivekananda, Adv. &
Sri P S Manjunath, Adv.]
THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT BY THE COMPLAINANTS, PRAYING TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2011 PASSED BY THIS
COURT IN W.P. NO. 35158-35159/2009 (LA-UDA) VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.,
THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The complainants in these contempt petitions were petitioners in Writ petition Nos.35158-59/2009 (LA-UDA). The complainants' lands were acquired by Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short 'MUDA') for the purpose of forming layouts under the schemes formulated by the Authority.
2. The complainants had sought for allotment of some sites in their favour and as per certain resolution that had 3 been passed by the Authority earlier that having not been acceded to by the authority had approached the Court by filing writ petitions. This Court disposed of the writ petitions on 19.9.2011 quashing the rejectment of their request as per the endorsement issued in their favour and further issued directions as under:
"17. The petitioners are also armed with the Division Bench's judgment, dated 17.8.2011 passed in W.A.No.4504/2010 directing the respondent No.2 to consider the cases of the similarly placed persons for the allotment of sites on preferential basis. The petitioners further show their bonafides by agreeing not to seek any concession in the price of the sites. They submit that they are willing and ready to take the sites paying the prevailing and full price.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, these petitions are allowed quashing the impugned endorsements. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for allotment of sites on preferential basis by collecting the sital value within three months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order."4
It is thereafter, the contempt petition on the premise accused person has not complied with the court order.
3. Notice had been issued to the accused person. The accused person is represented by counsel.
4. Counter affidavit had been placed before this Court. Though no counter has been filed, a memo is placed before this Court on behalf of the accused person and it is submitted by Mr. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the accused person that as per the official memorandum, endorsement dated 5.2.2013 and later corrigendum correcting the same on 12.2.2013, the complainants have been allotted sites and site measuring 40' X 60' is for a price of Rs.10,10,000/-, site measuring 30' x 40' is being allotted for a price of Rs.3,80,000/- and site measuring 20' x 30' is being allotted for a price of Rs.1,36,000/-.
5
5. Sri.P.Mahesha, learned counsel appearing for the complainants has been furnished with the copy of this order of allotment/proposal. He submits that site is allotted in different area than the land which was acquired and price fixed is also arbitrarily high. It is asserted that there are vacant sites available in the very area for the formation of adjacent layouts for which the complainants lands were acquired. It is also submitted that prices are exorbitantly high and not uniform.
6. It is not necessary for this Court to go into these aspects in contempt jurisdiction as to whether sites are available in one area or the other and price if is the price on which other allotments are made. If the complainants are still aggrieved, it is open to them to question the endorsement of allotment etc. 6
7. Without prejudice, we close these contempt petitions Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NG*