Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2021
Author: B. Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
C.C.C. No.653/2021 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O PRABHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O GANJIKATTE VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DIST. 577526.
2. SMT. VIJAYAMMA,
W/O DALAVAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O KODIHALLI VILALGE,
MAYAKONDA HOBLI,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DIST-577534....COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.
2
2. SRI GIRISH
TAHSILDAR
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DIST
PIN CODE 577002.
3. SRI VISHWANATH,
REVENUE INSPECTOR
MAYAKONDA HOBLI,
DAVANGERE TALUK AND DIST.
PIN CODE 577534
4. SRI ASHOK
KODIHALLI VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
MAYAKONDA HOBLI
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DIST
PIN CODE 577534
5. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE.
6. SRI KUBERAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
7. NAGENDRAPPA, S./O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
8. ANJANAMMA W/O RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE R/O LOKIKERE VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK
PIN CODE 577002.
9. SRI MANJAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
TEACHER
3
10 . SMT. SHATHNAMMA W/O RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O VIJAYAPURA VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK
PIN CODE 577522.
11 . SMT. SUVARNAMMA W/O CHIKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
R/O CHIKKAMMANAHATTI VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK
PIN CODE 577528
12 . SRI ANNAPPA W/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
13 . SMT. CHADRAMMA, W/O RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
R/O YARAVANAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK
PIN CODE 577 002.
ACCUSED No.5 TO 7,9 AND 12
ARE ALL RESIDENT OF KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK, PIN CODE - 577525. ...ACCUSED
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR A1 TO A3;
SRI SANTHOSH R NELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR A5 TO A13;
A4 IS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)
....
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 BY THE COMPLAINANTS TO
INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND PUNISH
RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 13 AS PER CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT AND
TO TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THEM DUE TO
VIOLATION OF STAY ORDER DATED 09.06.2017 IN R.A.
4
NO.42/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALSO
DIRECT ACCUSED Nos.2 TO 4 TO RESTORE THE KHATA AND RTC IN
THE NAME OF MOTHER OF COMPLAINANT i.e., CHINNAMMA AS PER
EARLIER ENTRY.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present contempt petition alleging disobedience of the order dated 26.2.2016 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davangere in R.A.No.42/2016 staying execution and operation of the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2016 passed in made in O.S.No. 145/2014 (Old No.310/2000). In spite of the said stay order, the name of accused Nos.5 to 13 have changed in the Khata and RTC.
2. Today, Sri Kiran Kumar, learned HCGP for accused Nos.1 to 3 has filed an affidavit dated 26.10.2021 of Sri B.N. Girish, Tahasildar, Davangere Taluk and District stating that as per the orders passed by the Additional Civil Court, Davangere, in the original suit, the authorities were directed to change the Khatha of land in question in the name of the decree holder and the said 5 decree was the subject matter of appeal in RA No.45/2016 where the Appellate Authority had stayed the execution and operation of the order passed in the original suit. As such, there was a mistake committed by the concerned case worker, who without knowing the stay order has entered the name of the decree holder. Now the same has been rectified by restoring the khatha of the land in question in the name of the original parties. In the affidavit, at paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, he has specifically stated as under:
"5. I submit that, there after I called report form accused No.3 & 4. The accused No. 3 & 4 have submitted a reports stating that there is dispute between the said Hanumappa and the present complainants. Thereafter as per the judgment and decree of the 3rd Addl. Civil Court Davanagere and the available records I passed an order on 15.2.2021 allowing the application of the Annappa S/o Hanumappa and directed the concerned authorities to change the Khatha of land in question in the name of decree holder Hanumappa S/O Hanumappa.
6. I respectfully submit that, after receipt of this contempt case notice from the High Court Govt.6
Pleader and the connected contempt petition with copies of the annexures only I came to notice that there is stay to the judgment and decree 3rd Addl. Civil Court Davanagere in the proceedings of RA-45/2016 on the file of 1st Addl. District Judge Davanagere. Then immediately I called the concerned case worker, accused No.3 and 4 and enquired the matter and noticed that there is the/ stay orders passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge Davanagere. I respectfully submit that, the concerned case worker has not put up and placed all the concerned records and stay order along with the file before me at the time of passing the impugned order.
7. I submit that, the mistake committed by the concerned case Worker resulted in passing the impugned order. Therefore it is not intentional one on my part. In the mean while the present complainants have also filed appeal in RA/CR/33 of 2021 before the Assistant commissioner Davanagere to set aside the order passed by me Dated: 15.2.2021. Immediately I wrote letter to the Assistant Commissioner explaining all the circumstances happened in passing the impugned order. After considering my letter date:7
22.9.2021, the appeal reasons filed by the present complainants the court orders, the learned Assistant commissioner allowed the appeal of this complainants and set aside the order passed by me dated: 15.2.2021 and further order to keep the mutations as stands earlier. And accordingly now the Khatha of the land in question is restored to the original parties."
3. In view of the above, the contempt proceedings are hereby dropped.
Sd/-
Judge Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-