Karnataka High Court
Mahesh vs Dr. Ajay Nagabhushan M.N., Ias on 31 October, 2017
Bench: B.S Patil, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CCC NO. 450/2017 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN
MAHESH
S/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT HAKKIMANCHANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
K R PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571 401
... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
1. DR. AJAY NAGABHUSHAN M.N., IAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
FORMER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA
NOW WORKING AS A PRL. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
2
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. SRI S. ZIYAULLAH, IAS
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
WORKING AS A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA 571401.
... ACCUSED
*******
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO 1) INITIATE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED
NOS.1 AND 2 FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER
DATED 23/03/2015 IN W.P.NO.35299/2014 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT
NO.1 AND 2) INITIATE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST
ACCUSED NO.1 SINCE HE HAD FILED FALSE AFFIDAVIT
BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 08/03/2016 IN THE
EARLIER CCC NO.1520/2015(CIVIL) DISPOSED ON
08/03/2016 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.2.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
1. Complainant who was petitioner in W.P.No.35299/2014 (KLR-RES) is seeking for initiation of proceedings against respondents alleging that order passed on 23.03.2015 has been willfully disobeyed by them.
3
2. Complainant herein had submitted a representation dated 07.07.2014 to the respondents seeking for protecting and reserving the lands described thereunder as free pasturage for cattle in the village, contending inter alia that it is gomal land. However, State on appearance contended that some portions of gomal land have already been granted and therefore, it cannot be permitted to be used for free pasturage of cattle based on the representation of petitioner. After considering the rival contentions raised by learned advocates appearing for parties, following directions came to be issued by learned Single Judge and it reads:
"4. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of four months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today's order.4
5. It is made clear that if any portion of the gomal lands in question is already granted or if their occupation is regularized, such orders are to be challenged by way of appeals before the Assistant Commissioner. If the land in question is not granted to anybody and if it is indeed a gomal land and if there is no order for de- reserving the same, the Deputy Commissioner is bound to ensure that it is used for the free pasturage of cattle."
3. We have heard arguments of Sri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for complainant. It is contended that though in effect, first direction of learned Single Judge has been complied with by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, factual position insofar as land in question is concerned is not free and cattle in the village are not in a position to graze in the said area and as such he has alleged non-compliance of the order passed by learned Single Judge.
4. Perusal of records would disclose that direction which came to be issued to 2nd respondent was to consider 5 the representation dated 07.07.2014 in accordance with law and expeditiously within a time limit of four months. On account of non-consideration of said representation petitioner had approached this Court in C.C.C.(Civil) 1520/2015 and on service of notice, respondent appeared and filed counter affidavit stating thereunder that Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, after hearing the appellant has passed an order dated 05.03.2016 in R.A.4/2016 canceling the grant made in order No.LND LLCR.673/77-78 to 729/77-78 dated 17.02.1978 etc., to certain individuals. He also deposed in his counter affidavit that mutation revenue entries made in favour of grantees has also been ordered to be cancelled and land in question was ordered to be restored as gomal in RTC Column Nos.3 and 9 in respect of Sy.No.287 of Kasaba, K.R.Pet Taluk. To substantiate his claim said order came to be produced as Annexure-R1. Thus in effect first direction which came to be issued by the learned Single Judge had stood complied. Accepting the cause for delay in implementing the direction contempt proceedings 6 in C.C.C.No.1520/2015 referred to herein supra came to be dropped on 11.03.2016 vide Document No.4.
5. Insofar as second direction which came to be issued by the learned Single Judge directing the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that land in question is used for free pasturage of cattle, it has been contended as already noticed herein above by the complainant that there is no effective implementation of the order and the land has not yet been completely de-reserved for the purpose of being used as free pasturage for cattle, cannot be accepted since order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 05.03.2016 in R.A.4/2016 canceling the grant made and necessary revenue entries having been effected in Column Nos.3 and 9 of RTC (revenue records), this Court while expressing the complaint of willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would not be in a position to go into disputed question of facts.
Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps if the land is still not free for free 7 pasturage of cattle, this contempt proceedings are hereby dropped.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE VP