Karnataka High Court
Sri Suryakant S/O Shamrao Patil vs Sri.T.K. Anil Kumar I.A.S And Ors on 22 March, 2018
Bench: Vineet Kothari, R.Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
CCC No.200195/2016 (CIVIL)
Between:
Sri Suryakant S/o Shamrao Patil,
Aged about 53 Years,
Occ : Business,
R/o H.No.90 & 91, Corporation Layout,
Near Venkatagiri Hotel, Kalaburagi.
... Complainant
(By Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, Advocate)
And:
1. Sri T.K. Anil Kumar, I.A.S.,
Aged about 50 Years,
Secretary to Government,
Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha, Amberdkar Veedhi,
Bangalore.
Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016
Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others
2
2. Sri P. Sunil Kumar, I.A.S.,
Aged about45 Years,
The Commissioner,
Kalaburagi Mahanagar Palike,
Kalaburagi 585 101.
3. Sri Illias Ahmed Isamadi,
The Special Land Acquisition Officer/
Assistant Commissioner,
Kalaburagi-585 101.
... Accused
(By Sri R.V. Nadagouda, Additional Advocate
General for A-1 and 3 ;
Sri Veeranagouda, Advocate appearing on behalf of
Sri P.S. Malipatil, Advocate for A-2 )
This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Court Act, praying to, initiate contempt of
Court proceedings against the Accused for disobedience
and disrespecting the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by
this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.101243/2013 Vide
Annexure-A.
This CCC coming on for Orders this day,
VINEET KOTHARI J., made the following:
ORDER
Mrs. Ratna N. Shivayogimath Advocate for Complainant Mr. R.V. Nadagouda, Additional Advocate General for Accused Nos.1 and 3 Mr. Veeranagouda, Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri P.S. Malipatil, Advocate for Accused No.2 Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016 Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others 3
1. The petitioner Suryakant S/o Shamrao Patil has filed this contempt petition arising out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.12.2015, in WP No.101243/2013, filed by the present petitioner.
2. The relevant directions of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 01.12.2015, in Paragraph No.6 of the said order are quoted for ready reference :
"On the other hand, if the third respondent arrives at the conclusion that in view of the request made by the second respondent, the property is not required to be acquired. In such event, the third respondent shall determine as to whether in the said process, the property belonging to the petitioner has been utilised or even if not utilised, any building constructed by the petitioner has been demolished at the instance of the respondents and has been abandoned thereafter. If in such circumstance, the third respondent arrives at the conclusion that such demolition has been made and loss has been caused to the petitioner, such decision at the outset shall be taken by the third respondent as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date on which the representation is submitted by the petitioner. If the report submitted by the third respondent is in favour Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016 Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others 4 of the petitioner and any further action to compensate the petitioner is required, the first respondent shall act upon the report submitted by the third respondent in an expeditious manner, but not later than two months from the date on which such report is submitted by the third respondent to the petitioner.
In terms of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of."
3. Upon issuance of notices in the present contempt petition, the respondent No.3-the Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed his Affidavit in this Court dated 04.08.2016. Paragraph No.5 of the said Affidavit is quoted below for ready reference:
"On verifying the city survey records it is found that in the said CTS no. the first floor belongs to the petitioner and the said property was earlier notified for the land acquisition for road widening, mean while the Commissioner, city corporation, Kalaburagi has asked to drop the acquisition process of the said property, for the reason that the said property does not required to be acquired. As per the request of the Commissioner, City Corporation, Kalaburagi, a de-notification proposal was sent to Government for approval on dated 16.02.2012 (i.e. to drop the acquisition process of the said property). On the other hand, on 27.07.2016 I have also conducted the spot inspection of the said Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016 Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others 5 property and it is found that the open space in front of the said building is in the enjoyment of the concerned land owner. After inspecting the building it is difficult to say that the said building was demolished or not at the time of the formation of road or drain. And even the petitioner has not submitted any documents showing that the said building was demolished for formation road or drain. As per the report of Assistant Director Land Records (City Survey), Kalaburagi no drain or road is passing from the land of the petitioner. Based on report of Assistant Director Land records (City Survey), Kalaburagi and my inspection I have submitted a report to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Bangalore and Commissioner, City Corporation, Kalaburagi and to the petitioner on dated 01.08.2016. Hence, it is up to City Corporation, Kalaburagi to decide whether the said building was demolished for formation road or drain. The copy of the said report of the deponent is submitted herewith at ANNEXURE-R.2 AND R.3."
4. A rejoinder to the affidavit of the respondent No.3 has been filed by the petitioner in this Court on 02.09.2016 and the petitioner in Paragraph No.3 of the said rejoinder affidavit dated 02.09.2016, has stated as under :
Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016 Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others 6 "It is submitted that the Accused No.3 has stated that in para No.5, that he has conducted the spot inspection on 27.07.2016, that the front the open space of the building is in enjoyment of the land owner and that the petitioner has not submitted any documents showing that the said building was demolished for formation of the road or drain. But it is a fact that the Accused No.3 has neither issued any notices nor called the complainant personally at the time of alleged spot inspection. If the Accused No.3 had issued any such notices before inspection, the complainant would have definitely furnished the documents like photographs and paper publications and the statement of the neighboring shop owners. But the Accused No.3 without any issuance of such notices or recording the statement has shifted his responsibility, thereby has failed to comply with the directions of this Hon'ble Court. The copies of the photographs are produced herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. When the building was demolished without due process on 21.08.2008, the same was published in 'Vijaya Karnataka' Kannada daily news paper dated 22.08.2008. The copy of the 'Vijaya Karnataka' Kannada daily news paper dated 22.08.2008 is produced herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
It is pertinent to state there that the complainant is running a 'Bhojanalaya' and after demolition and abandonment by Accused, has made some repairs to protect himself and to his building."
Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016 Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others 7
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before the Court that respondent No.3 has not held the survey after notifying the petitioner and has shifted the burden on the City Municipal Corporation on the question whether the demolition of the petitioner's property was done or not.
6. From the Affidavit filed by the accused- respondent No.3 it is clear that initially the land acquisition proceedings were initiated which were later on dropped on 16.02.2012 vide Paragraph No.5 of his affidavit quoted above and on the spot inspection it was found that the open space in front of the said building is in the enjoyment of the concerned land owner. After inspecting the building, it is difficult to say that the said building was demolished or not, at the time of formation of road or drainage. It is stated by the accused- respondent No.3 further that the petitioner has not Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016 Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others 8 submitted any document showing that the said building was demolished for formation or road or drainage.
7. The learned counsel for the City Corporation, Mr.Veeranagouda, has also submitted before this Court that no work of drainage or road was carried out on the Government land adjacent to the petitioner's property. The learned Additional Government Advocate has also produced before us some site photographs, in which a properly constructed building purportedly belonging to the petitioner is also shown in the photographs.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that this renovation of the building was carried out by the petitioner himself because after demolition, the respondents had abandoned and the petitioner who was carrying on the business of 'Bhojanalaya' (Eatery) in the said premises had to renovate and repair the said building for carrying of such business.
Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016 Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others 9
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the available records, we are satisfied that no contempt is made out on the part of the respondents and no deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out. What was envisaged by the order of the learned Single Judge vide Paragraph No.6 quoted above was only to direct the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner about the fact of demolition and if a positive report in favour of the petitioner is furnished by the respondent No.3, then a further action to compensate the petitioner may be required. However, no such report in favour of the petitioner has been submitted by the respondent No.3 vide his aforesaid Affidavit quoted above. Even for arguments sake, if it is held to be a question of fact nonetheless, the fact remains a disputed question of facts before us and for such disputed question of facts arising in the matter, we cannot hold the respondent guilty of committing Date of order: 22.03.2018 CCC No.200195/2016 Suryakant Vs T.K. Anil Kumar and others 10 contempt of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. No clear direction of the Court appears to have been breached by the respondents. The representation of the petitioner was considered after due physical and spot verification has been carried out by the respondent and affidavit in this regard has been submitted. There is no evidence of drainage or road widening work having been carried out by the respondent No.3 placed on record. It was for the petitioner to have established the fact of demolition of his property.
11. In view of these facts we are satisfied that no contempt of the Court is made out on the part of the respondent No.3. Accordingly, we dismiss the present contempt petition.
Sd/- Sd/- JUDGE JUDGE RSP