Karnataka High Court
K C Subbaiah vs Dr. Richard Vincent Dsouza on 20 June, 2017
Bench: Jayant Patel, S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
CCC No.451/2017 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
K.C.SUBBAIAH
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
R/AT AJRI VILLAGE,
BHOTOLI POST,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT ...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
Dr. RICHARD VINCENT D' SOUZA
AGE MAJOR, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
WORKING AS A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KODAGU DISTRICT, STUART HILL,
MADIKERI-571201 ...ACCUSED
(BY SRI D.NAGARAJ, AGA.)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED
17.06.2016 IN W.P.No.38835/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1.
2
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JAYANT
PATEL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The basis of the present case under the Contempt of Courts Act is the alleged breach and non-compliance to the Order dated 17.06.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.38835/2015, whereby a direction was given to reserve a particular area as gomal land.
2. We have heard Mr. Pavana Chandra Shetty H., learned Counsel for the Complainant and Mr. D. Nagaraj, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Accused.
3. In response to the process issued by this Court, the affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri, reporting that the Order dated 12.06.2017 has been passed and the area admeasuring 3 15.12 acres is reserved as gomal land considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. As such, in view of the aforesaid Order, it cannot be said that contempt would continue. However, learned counsel appearing for the Complainant states that the survey has not been properly made nor there is appropriate area reserved on the basis of the availability of the cattle and therefore he submitted that the order is wrong and the Complainant is not satisfied with the order.
5. In our view, if the Complainant is not satisfied with the Order, the Complainant has to resort to appropriate proceedings for challenging the Order before the appropriate forum. Such grievance cannot be heard in the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Hence subject to the aforesaid 4 observations, the present proceedings are not required to be continued further.
Disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-