Prajwal Gouda vs Mr Iliyas Ahmed Issamuddin And Ors on 28 February, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Prajwal Gouda vs Mr Iliyas Ahmed Issamuddin And Ors on 28 February, 2017

Bench: Aravind Kumar

                                1



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                  KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

                          PRESENT

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

             CCC NO.200039/2017 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

Prajwal Gouda
S/o Basavangouda
Minor, under the guardianship of
his natural father Basavangouda
S/o Balwanthappa Police Patil
Age about 47 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o village Mallabad
Taluk Jewargi, Dist: Kalaburagi-585310.
                                          ...COMPLAINANT

(By Sri K.M. Ghate, Advocate)

AND:

1. Mr. Iliyas Ahmed Issamuddin
   Assistant Commissioner (Land
   Acquisition Officer)
   Kalaburagi-585101.

2. Mr. Yellappa Subedar
                                2



     Tahsildar (Taluk Executive
     Magistrate), Taluka Jewargi
     Dist: Kalaburagi-585310.

3. Mr. Mallikarjun Patil
   Revenue Inspector of Ejery Revenue Circle
   Taluka Jewargi, Dist: Kalaburagi-585310.

                                                 ...ACCUSED

       This CCC is filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Court Act, praying to issue notice to the contemnors calling
upon them as to why contempt proceedings shall not be
initiated against them for having willfully violated order
dated 6th January 2016 passed by this Court in WP
No.204691/2015, punish the contemnors for having
committed contempt of this Court.

    This CCC coming on for orders this day, Aravind
Kumar J., made the following:

                           ORDER

Reply given to the office objection is accepted and office objection stands over-ruled.

2. This proceeding is initiated by the complainant alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 06.01.2016 passed in W.P.No.204691/2015.

3. We have heard Mr. K.M. Ghate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records. 3 The order which has been alleged to have been disobeyed by the respondents reads as under:

"Reserving liberty to the petitioner to respond, in writing, to the notice dated 31.07.2015 Annexure- H impugned and if already done, respondents to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law, nothing further survives for consideration in this petition and is accordingly disposed of."

4. A perusal of the above direction issued by this Court would clearly indicate that petitioner was reserved liberty to submit reply to the notice dated 31.07.2015 which was impugned in the writ petition, if it was not already filed and further direction was issued to the respondents to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. Neither there is a direction to the respondents to do any positive act nor any time frame had been fixed except directing respondents to consider the objection of petitioner. The contention of the petitioner has remained as an allegation without any proof. Even otherwise, if 4 respondents have taken further steps in the matter, it would be a complete answer to the response or reply filed by the complainant to the notice dated 31.07.2015 Annexure-H.

5. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that further proceedings are not required to be continued.

Hence, contempt proceedings are dropped.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE swk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court