Karnataka High Court
Sri.Anil S/O Jagadish Suri vs P.Shivashankar on 27 June, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
CCC Nos.100058-100059 of 2019 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
SRI.ANIL S/O JAGADISH SURI
AGED: 63 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND PROPRIETOR OF
M/S SURI AUTO PRODUCTS
SY.NO.42, MTS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030,
R/O: DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.
DIST : DHARWAD
... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
P.SHIVSHANKAR
THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KHANIJ BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01.
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI. A.S. PONNANNA, SR. COUNSEL AND
SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SECURE THE PRESENCE
:2:
OF THE ACCUSED, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND
PUNISH HIM FOR HAVING COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF THE
ORDER DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.105981/2019 & W.P.NO.106016/2019
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These proceedings have been initiated by the complainant who was the writ petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.105981 of 2019 and 106016 of 2019 alleging two directions issued by the learned Single Judge have not been complied by respondents willfully.
2. In order to examine the claim made by the complainant, it would be apt and appropriate to extract the directions so issued by the learned Single Judge and it read:
"9. Hence, petitions are allowed. There shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent who shall hand over the possession of the lands identified in favour of the petitioner comprised and carved out of Sy.Nos.115-P and 116-P of Kelageri village, Dharwad. The respondent shall hand :3: over the possession of the lands within four weeks from today.
10. With regard to further relief sought for by the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to the 3rd respondent- authority and if such a representation is made for allotment of the additional 3 acres of land in compliance with the recommendation of the State Level Single Window Committee, the same shall be expeditiously considered and disposed of by the 3rd respondent within an outer limit of eight weeks from today."
It was the grievance of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that though 10 acres of land in Belur Industrial Area and particularly plot No.608 and 609 was recommended by State Level Single Window Clearance Agency (SLSWCA) and yet contemnor had not allotted said land expressing its inability and respondent had also informed petitioner of being allotted 7 acres of land within the industrial layout carved out of Sy. No.115/P and 116/P of Kelageri village, Dharwad and had called upon the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.52,85,000/- and further a sum of Rs.1,23,20,826 as tentative premium of the land or :4: cess/charges etc. which was paid and acknowledged and on account of the said land having not been allotted, a direction was sought for. Hence, above directions came to be issued.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would fairly submit that possession of land measuring 7 acres has been delivered by issuance of possession certificate and at the same time, a communication has been forwarded by the KIADB to the complainant not to enter upon said land. However, Sri. A. S. Ponnanna, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Sharmila Patil for KIADB would contend that on account of two existing sheds in the land measuring 7 acres, which has now been handed over to the complainant which is the subject matter of OA 161 of 2016, KIADB has intimated the petitioner with regard to possession of said shed not to be interfered and relies upon communication dated 30.05.2019. The original records have been made available to us for perusal. On perusal of original records, we see from said communication dated 30.05.2019, respondent has directed :5: the complainant not to enter upon the said land, which is after handing over possession to the complainant, and this would be contrary to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court. At this juncture, Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel would hasten to add that they would withdraw the communication dated 30.05.2019 and would not prevent the petitioner from entering upon the land except with regard to the two industrial sheds found therein and demarcated in the sketch appended to the possession certificate already issued to the petitioner.
4. Placing his submission on record, we are of the considered view that the first direction issued by the learned Single Judge stands complied.
5. Insofar as second direction issued to the 3rd respondent-Authority to consider the representation for the petitioner for allotment of additional 3 acres of land is concerned, in the light of recommendation of SLSWC, it is stated by KIADB that same has been considered and :6: prayer of petitioner has been rejected on 28.03.2019 and also communicated to the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, proceedings are dropped with liberty to the petitioner-complainant to challenge the communication dated 28.03.2019, if, so advised.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE kmv