Karnataka High Court
Smt N S Kaveramma vs Sri Putta Rudrappa on 21 August, 2008
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN 'me HIGH coma" or KARNATAKA AT anueaaejizfi amen nus THE 21" mm or AUGUST;.._2;5§§:'V'. l ~ PRESENi~ __fi _'u "ms a<>u'aLE MR. JUSTICE sh,
"me Horraua MR. JUSTICE Smt. N.S. Kave«ram3'11a, .. '.
Wfo !ate T.N=i'. Na§;a'p'p'a_,» _ V.
Aged about 64LV.yaa1.-5%, .. '
R/at No,.'22G;'22:1, 3*": 'Cross;
4*" Main; cn_amaras3a;>et,'«%%%% M %
Banga¥ofe«. ,
Compiai-want
(By Rama€han_§irfi, Am{.,)
'S_r¥.; iifififappa @ Putta Rudraiah,
*Sfo iat¢'!{:t!aiah,
Agedgabout 84 years,
H H " :' ' ' = .. ,Smt.' 'Rhdramma,
" . O'/'~o Sri. Putta Rudrappa
'Putta Rudraiah,
Aged about 34 years,
" Both are r/at Mailathahafli viilaoe,
Yeshwanthpura Habit,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore.
proceedings against the accused foI*._disobe;ri'h'g"jth.eVCérder».' dated 12.09.2005 passed in _No.1693.s,r.2o_o5;.; This CCC coming on foru..brel"iminanflr'hearing, this day, A.N. veuuoommioowoa J...ma.de the fol!owlng:.
In this to initiate contempt accused alleging
conternptoi' ground that the accused had flied a caiiiiswa obtained decree and to dedarelundokthe'~decislon In 05.16986/2005 dated " "12.9.v-$05'-eon"«the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. . lwé"rg:.ha9té heard sn Rameshchandra, learned counsel forv:t.he".complainant and perused the record.
" , B.f.«According to the complainant, the 1" accused was absolute owner of the property measuring an extent of acres in Sy.No.28 of Mailathahaiii, Yeshwanthapura \ Z any interference is caused by the oociised ioiihewr ii 'V person claiming under them.
8. There is no dispute t¥i_;it.V..the""1'§ a.c_ceeed_"ie,ttie i father of the 2"" accusedr Adm:t:§;i:y, the was the owner of the propervtyiiin has sold the property by fonnii:-g_. iayouiioi' thereafter entered into ierithiiifiifiiiaiilflghterr the 2""
win not bind the persons have right, titie and interest, if any, on theiiigzrorierty Al531b'<)y:.'~~"i:o the passing of the decree " '~da_'ted':_j }:.2;,.§.2DD5 AA in vv--(}.S.16986/2005. The compromise ieerein cannot bind the persons who are not'g7arties'té$i':_i-fie' proceedings and if on the basis of such 'decree, ifttlfae 2"' accused or any person ciaiming through ro'a~!_<es any claim over the property contrary to Ian: and ..__"'inte;rfer$ with the right, title and interest of the person floxrer the oropety, the same can be resisted by the iawfui holder. Even the affected party can seek invalidation of the said decree by seeking a deciaratiin before the Civil /, 4"
Court, if the decree is sought to be made use of, against such person. Since there is scope to initiate_oribthei"-«V. proceedings before the Civil Court by an aggneeed. K to declare the judgment and decree-o'ai:ea.,i;§;9.éo-oesttiv. passed in 05.16986/2005 as nun'«ca:ie"vone;V_c%%tn.ces;e!'eet affects his or her right to hold a--n:d~Venjo.§'r is not open to the comp--ia_lnantr"'te undoi'ngV:of the decision in o.s.1s9a6/zoostea-teeth 12h;re;o2oos of the City Civil Court, Ba In proceedings.
9.11:1 tnecase 'er'HAteiA HAJI (supra), the facts were "that;»_aVopeiiant"therein claimed to have purchased an V.Ve'xtent~oi'v.2D;'aeres of land blocked in Sy.No.2157 of Ageii viiiege; Manr.-tarégihat Taiuk and the deed was accompanied by a sketch showing the property conveyed. The property ~£éreAs'tdi*sposed of by way of assignments in the years 1971 1972 and by way of a gift of 5 acres to his brother. was left with no property aliegedly acquired under the saie deed of the year 1968. on 10.5.1971, the Kerala Private Foreets {vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 came X:
10
into force. The appeitant fiied an appticationrinv 1979 before the Forest Tribunai under. '''8.7Iettis-'ef':saiis:i ' V' Act seeking a cieciaration that the property was not a private ferlfeaty tlatiiete in the" V Government. He claimed exe§npti'on_ urid'er..5ec}tion 3 of the Act and in the aiteft:at§ve,__ctajrnet¥_ ttiatyeven if the iand was private forest? tne" him as owner under his §pet59rt_ei{cu!t§2att.oVn-.."anvd" intent to cultivate and tt1_at._ {Emit appiicabie to him under they:'i<erai'aA:Ltanti' Act and hence same may betieciared.Vto ..t§eVexe:i11pt from vesting under Section 3(3) "«.fThe State fiied objections to the appiicatten tt'sroag'itf"fo_rest':authorities contending that, the iand was private--.."forest; that the Madras Preservation of Private Forestsnfict appiy to the Courts and it continued to be a ti '~torest under the Act and hence the prayer under Section
-~~3:(2) of the Act was unsustainabie. The prayer under Section 3(3) of the Act was also opposed on the piea that the appeiiant had no vaiid titie to the iand; that it was not cultivated and the appeiiant had no\intention to cutttvate / 12 of the forest tribunal became final. Due to widespread complaints and emerging public opinion, the Governi'n'entvv., realised that quite a number of appiicatlons Forest Tribunal for exemption of""'e:<qius_ion,v,"tee;-e' V aliowed by unscrupulous eiel1ientsiriitli.A.A_t'he the form authorities and others,"~..an anien'onie5nt:~--:aCt"vtas brought about with el'fe<;t_fron'i.i-1-*.?i..f_i~1.f't9,.£i3 a'no.acti§on was initiated. The state fi'leti_,_"rettl§il§i iietitllonl No.21?/1987 before the Forestj:"Trlbu:hai'iseeklnef~_revieie'of the decision dated :i7;'i2r.«1?.:i.3voV.u'Thej;Fore$t""rribunai dismissed the review petition' _>'gi'..V(_:)&VIA;i!'ii.'!--~ that, its order sought to be reviewed, has rtierg'ee'i,titiiil'tne judgment of the High Court in tlvi:e:"iat;;leavli.n Harn'2";a**'Haji approached the High Court in a "--_oirect the State and forest otriciais to restore ni_rezo7ecres of land in implementation of the order the Forest Tribunal which was opposed by the State and "?.'forest"A_«authorities. The writ petition was ailowed and a it --msdilriection was issues to restore the appellant the 20 acres of land. Since the land was not restored within the time fixed by the Court, extension of time was obtained. \ / .13 Realising that the very approach of the appeiient mares "
Forest Tribunal was a fraudulent "~«t_o-;'itnoe':i<.:vv'oiii' forest iand vested in the State and on'the--.date made application before the Forest"V"i*e»i::'rihunVei'*._enri".= appeiiant had no vestig'e_ i:ire.eA%theidiapiiiicaticn scheduie propertyfpphe the entire extent of land" him under the document forward when he approacjhedv 1.1.1991, the State fiied a.p.1j;1cmr¢rimire order in Misceiianeous First A-ppeai.i"' i_3:Vn'oé:t:oi2nt"'of the deiay in filing the review .._p¢etition}T"the..revieinr""petition was dismissed without going he '£ho.'n§o'.?:i:s{.V[Ina State had flied S.L.P. which was not The appeiiant thereafter moved application ii""'~..VV"oAnder.'Contempt of Courts Act complaining that non- ' s:."'--resto§'ation of land. In View of such action, State and i .._forest authorities purported to have handed over 20 acres of land to the appeiiant witnessed by a pian and rnanazar and contempt petition was ciosed. In View of the pubiic opinion generated that the appiicant haKiiieoaiiy obtained X I4 20 acres of fragile forest land, the State and approached High Court with a review petition it orders passed. Further action:-wasteta'iteg3®*--'I.";fi:-t'i*ie7_' rneanwhiie a body of citizens hati«V_fi':ed'i aiiiwiriit praying to issue writ of mandeirifitis» dire<.ting..the sjnot to assign, not to reiease or iiacrm-"of ever green forest to the ai5bae_i'i'3'ht,i"V::' heard an the petitions togethverrizhe the appeiiant had secured€.ai.§.. by piaying a fraud ori entire proceedings, in exercise its under Article 2:15 of the ConstiVtt§tioni""raad set at 'riaught the order oi' the Formt «rrmiia; 2/enact: wss:uu~na to be vitiated by fraud and the one other writ petitioners were aiiowed, dismissing 'application fiied before the Forest Tribunai. Hig'hv'_Court also directed the State to take back the 20 land said to have been put in the possession of appeiiant during the pendency of the contempt of "Court case. The said decision was chaiienged before the Hon'bie Supreme Court, which after consideration was 5 \ l///;
13 disposed of as per the decision referred to "
the pecuiiar facts and circumstances of the case;-._::sii1;ceVvitiie forest iand was sought to be acqzuitred' *.3iy"--;i:i'iée therein by practicing fraud, it was new the: tiiVe.fs';i£'=.fcisio'ii:.".iifv'V the High Court was justified.
19. In our view, no application of whatsoever nature to "ci'rcui*i1:stances of the present case. t:'ne'_,in.stant tcasejynto Véhikemment land is invoivea. If Eizifieiiefis aiinycdiiusiiite between the father and daugiiter-- i;Ve';;..accusedi.:a~nd if any third parties' rights to be afiecfeo by action, the affected party V can seek" imdressa-i._V_of' the grievance before the Competent :'I_Ci:vii.gfouit:Aéiiiir""ii*isi:itutin;: a suit for deciaration or other not find any contemptuous act by the accusezi. V-._':If'v?.::i'1e decision is affecting the agar, titie or it " 4.'''iiijterest oftiie cornpiainant to noid and enjoy her property, n_er:._%"i'en1edy can not be under these proceedings. The Vt .: C:C.'vi'--'i"itJI'0!"i"II$e decree between the accused doa not bind the strangers. Hence it is not a fit case to entertain this \, av:
16
petition and initiate contempt proceedings against the accused.
In view of the facts and circumstances ' and for the reasons stated su;jJra','*--.thé_: -is misconceived and is dismissed with it Tits shat! pay the cost of Rs.2,000/-V Béiizgaiofsvfieiiiiiation Center within a period of...four'..we-é§<s"'from toiiay,-vtaiiing which, the same snail be' Bangaiore Mediation Center.-:by_ against the