Karnataka High Court
Bijapur District Central Co-Operative ... vs Rajendrakumar Kathari Principal ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200207 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200108 OF 2025
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200122 OF 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200239 OF 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200241 OF 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200242 OF 2024
IN WA NO.200207/2024:
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH THE COMMISSIONER,
COURT OF CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
KARNATAKA
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LIMITED, BIJAPUR,
K.C.NAGAR, SHOLAPUR ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
BIJAPUR BY ITS CEO,
KIZHAKKE KOTTALA KRISHNAN UNNI
SURENDRANATHAN,
S/O K.KRISHNAN UNNI MENON,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: DCC BANK, BIJAPUR,
R/O BIJAPUR - 586 101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT,
GANDHI CHOWK,
BIJAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL ADV. FOR R1;
BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.202702/2015 DATED
07.12.2023, BY REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN CCC NO.200108/2025:
BETWEEN:
BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
BIJAPUR, K.C. NAGAR,
SHOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR,
BY ITS CEO
SIDDAPPA S/O DANAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: CEO OF DCC BANK, BIJAPUR,
R/O: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAJENDRA KUMAR KATARI,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR MEKKALAKI,
THE COMMISSIONER OF
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...ACCUSED
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 11 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 FOR CONTEMPT OF DIRECTION OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.12.2023 IN WP.NO.202702 OF
2015 ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN CCC NO.200122/2025:
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND
S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O: M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJENDRA KUMAR KATARI,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR MEKKALAKI,
THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...ACCUSED
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV FOR R2)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 11 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 FOR CONTEMPT OF DIRECTION OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 07.12.2023 IN WP.NO.204497 OF
2016 ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN WA NO.200239/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR, AT VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA)
AND:
1. SHIVANAND
S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O AT M.G. ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.204497/2016 DATED
07.12.2023 BY REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN WA NO.200241/2024:
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHIVANAND
S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O: AT M.G. ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT,
OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.204497/2016 DATED
07.12.2023 BY REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN WA NO.200242/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR, AT VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA)
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LIMITED,BIJAPUR, K. C. NAGAR,
SHOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR,
BY ITS CEO,
KRISHNAN UNNI SURENDRANANTHAN,
S/O K. KRISHNAN UNNI MENON,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: DCC BANK, BIJAPUR,
R/O BIJAPUR - 586 101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
GANDHI CHOWK,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.202702/2015 DATED
07.12.2023, BY REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITIONS
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
30.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) The CCC No.200108/2025 and CCC No.200122/2025 are filed for non-compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.202702/2015 connected with W.P.No.204497/2016 dated 07.12.2023 for civil disobedience vide Annexure-A and the appeals i.e., W.A.No.200207/2024, W.A.No.200239/2024, W.A.No.200241/2024 and W.A.No.200242/2024 are filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 challenging the very same order questioning the order of possession in the event of no acquisition proceedings are taken.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainants before the learned Single Judge while seeking the relief of writ of mandamus and for a direction to the respondents to initiate the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners properties which are more fully described in the said writ petitions that the petitioner
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS in W.P.No.204497/2016 was the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing CTS No.1126/1-C (1126/C). The complainant/petitioner claims in the writ petition that he had constructed three floor building (ground + two second floors) by investing lakhs of rupees and several business establishments wherein running the same in the said building and also the building furnished with modern amenities, electronic gadgets and fixtures so as to provide proper and competitive services to the customers.
3. The case of complainant/petitioner in W.P. No.202702/2015, is that petitioner was a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, engaged in the business of banking having long standing reputation and huge turnover. It was catering to the financial and credit requirements of the people of Bijapur and same was situated in the property bearing CTS No.1738/1A/2. The petitioner has constructed three floor building (Ground + two floors) by investing
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS huge crores of rupees. The building was furnished with modern amenities, electronic gadgets and fixtures so as to provide proper and competitive services to the customers.
4. In both the petitions, it is contended that respondent No.4-Corporation with an intention to implement the Master plan of the year 2006 to widen the main road (Mahatma Gandhi road) to an extent of 100 feet (30 meters), with high handedness demolished the land of adjoining land owners and illegally threatened to demolish the properties belonging to the petitioners. Hence, sought for the relief of mandamus, directing the respondents not to venture any illegal acts without due process of law. After demolition, the possession has been taken for the formation of road, which has been completed.
5. It is also contended that respondent No.4 had issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to express their willingness to accept the compensation of Rs.6,56,766.80 to an extent of 251.89 square feet in W.P.No.204497/2016 and Rs.41,46,512/- to an extent of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS 330 square feet in WP No.202702/2015 of the properties belonging to the petitioners which were required for widening the road.
6. It is contended that petitioners cooperated with respondent No.4 as the properties were required for widening of the road and the same was for a public purpose and agreed for the properties to be taken for widening of the road, but they have agreed to the same subject to the condition that suitable compensation would be paid inconsonance with the market rate prevalent as on the date of taking-up possession of the properties belonging to the petitioners. Hence, the amount which was offered by respondent No.4 was received under protest, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.
7. It is also contended that some adjoining owners and land losers approached this Court in W.P.No.200660/2016 connected with several other writ petitions and the said petitions were disposed off and a
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS compromise was arrived by the parties, awarding higher compensation.
8. It is also contended by the petitioners' counsel that in view of the other W.P.No.206277/2016 connected with other writ petitions, which came to be disposed off on 11.07.2023, and sought for similar relief. The counsel appearing for respondents in the writ petition i.e., respondent No.4-Corporation would contend that the order passed in W.P.No.206277/2016 connected with other petitions have been taken up in an appeal, which is pending adjudication before the Division Bench would also contend that the petitioners herein would not fall within the same category of the land losers.
9. The learned Single Judge having taken note of the contentions of the respective parties and also considering the material on record that the properties were similarly situated and the same were also for widening of the road and also taken note of the fact that without initiating any process of acquisition, the same was
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS done and hence the petitioners have to be compensated on the basis of the norms set out by the respondents will have to be decided by the respondents and also an observation made that the same cannot be contrary to the settled law in force.
10. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the petitions and considering the material on record an observation has been made that admittedly the properties of the petitioners are taken away, without any acquisition proceedings and compensation though paid, it was disputed by the petitioners. Hence, allowed the petitions with the following observation :-
i) The writ petitions are allowed;
ii) Respondent No.2 is at liberty to acquire the properties of the petitioners in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by issuing suitable necessary notification within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, respondent No.4 shall handover the possession of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS the properties of the petitioners within a period of 60 days thereafter, if not already acquired;
iii) Irrespective of the option chosen, the State shall make payment of damages towards the use of properties from the time of possession that was unauthorisedly taken to the date on which the possession is handed over at Rs.15 per sq.ft. per month being 0.5% on the value of the properties as agreed to be paid under the compromise in WP.No.207059/2014 and connected matters;
iv) As regards the damage cost to the petitioners in lieu of the unlawful demolition and taking away the properties of petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to file a petition claiming damages;
v) In the event of respondent No.2 choosing to acquire the land, the acquisition shall be completed and necessary compensation be paid to the petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by taking the value of the land as on the date on which the notification is issued, the notification shall be issued not later than 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
11. Now the counsel appearing for the complainants in the contempt petitions while invoking
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS contempt jurisdiction has contended that in spite of representations dated 15.10.2024, 16.02.2024 being given as per Annexures-B and C, subsequent to passing of order by learned Single Bench at Annexure-A, the respondents have not complied with the same. Now it is contended that in spite of representations are given and also when the appropriate orders for issuance of acquisitions proceedings is ordered respondents failed to comply the same even after lapse of several months, neither acquisition proceedings initiated nor properties are returned to petitioners. Hence, invoked contempt jurisdiction.
12. The appellants in writ appeals i.e., respondent No.4 as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the above writ appeals questioned the order of the learned Single Judge order dated 07.12.2023 on the ground that the learned Single Judge committed an error in passing such an order and brought to the notice of this Court the prayer sought in the writ petitions which is also set-out in the grounds of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS the appeals would contend that in absence of a pleading as well as a relief for possession of the properties, learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the appellants to handover the possession to respondent No.1 and observation that Corporation as well as State Government forcibly entered the property of respondent No.1, though the respondent No.1 grievance is in regard to determination of compensation and that observation is erroneous and it calls for interference.
13. It also contended that if land is redelivered as directed by the Court, it will affect the public communication and compensation offered to respondent No.1 was not accepted. Hence, it requires interference of this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Both Corporation as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed aforesaid appeals contending the very same grounds.
14. The counsel appearing for respondents in contempt petitions have filed counter affidavit before the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS Court and contend that due to the then old and narrow roads of Vijayapur City, the residents were facing lot of hardship and inconvenience, which promoted the concerned authorities to undertake the work of widening the main existing roads and also contended in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit that compensation was paid and also produced the documents at Annexures-R1 to R4.
15. Additional affidavit of respondent No.2 also filed before this Court along with three communications which are dated 13.08.2025, 14.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 and so also one more affidavit is filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, dated 29.08.2025 regarding initiating a proper and legal acquisition as per the provisions under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and copy of the letter dated 20.08.2025 vide Annexure-R1 and also letter of communication by Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure- R2 and notification as per Annexure-R3.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
16. It is contended that in pursuance of the notification, Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 26.08.2025, for initiating the acquisition proceedings as per Annexure-R4 and also in the affidavit it is stated about initiation of action against the erring officials relying upon Annexures-R5 to R7.
17. The counsel appearing for the contempt proceedings in his arguments would vehemently contend that the compliance is only partial compliance and not the compliance as ordered by the learned Single Judge in entirety.
18. Having considered the compliance affidavit as well as the grounds which have been urged in the contempt petitions as well as the writ appeals, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are :
i) Whether the complainants have made-out a ground to frame charges against respondents/ accused ?
ii) Whether the appellants have made-out grounds to set-aside the order of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS learned Single Judge passed in writ petitions ?
iii) What order ?
Point Nos.1 and 2 :
19. Having considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the grounds which have been urged in the contempt petitions, the grievance of the complainants is that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is disobeyed; contempt jurisdiction has to be invoked.
20. This Court already extracted the order passed by the learned Single Judge and having considered the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in direction No.(ii) of operative portion that respondent No.2 is at liberty to acquire the properties of the petitioners in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by issuing suitable necessary notification within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS order, failing which, the respondent No.4 shall handover the possession of the properties of the petitioners within a period of sixty (60) days thereafter, if not already acquired.
21. Having considered the aforesaid direction, the respondent No.2 has not issued necessary notification and hence contempt proceedings is initiated and now the material placed on record before this Court that the Principal Secretary who appeared through video conference had undertaken to issue the notification in the previous date and in terms of the said undertaking, now issued the notification on 26.08.2025. Hence, the second direction was complied. However, with regard to complete the process is concerned he submits that it is difficult to complete the process within sixty days and sought further time.
22. The main ground urged in the writ appeals is also that the direction given by the learned Single Judge, if the same is not complied within sixty days, respondent
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS No.4 shall hand over the possession of the properties of the petitioners within a period of 60 days thereafter. The Principal Secretary also would submit that if additional time is granted, same could be complied, since they have to follow the procedure. So also the counsel for the complaints submits that they are ready to even take the notice and no objections in view compliance of issuance of notification.
23. However, keeping in mind the very proviso, we felt that, it is appropriate to grant hundred (100) days time instead of sixty (60) days and the Principal Secretary also agreed for the same to do the same within time. When such being the case, the question of respondent No.4 handing over the possession of the properties of the petitioners within a period of sixty (60) days thereafter doesn't arise in view of notification and hence the relief sought in the writ appeals also doesn't survive for consideration and the same in the event of non-
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS compliance of direction No.(ii) of the learned Single Judge order.
24. The very contention urged in the appeals that there cannot be an order of handing over the possession of the properties, since the same is used for widening of the road. It is also not in dispute that the building was demolished and the road was widened and complainants also accepted the same.
25. Having considered the direction No.(iv) that as regards the damage cost to the petitioners in lieu of the unlawful demolition and taking away the properties of petitioners, liberty was given to the petitioners to file the petition claiming damages and hence, question of violation of direction No.4 doesn't arise.
26. The direction No.(v) is also very clear that in the event of respondent No.2 choosing to acquire the land, acquisition shall be completed and necessary compensation to be paid to the petitioners under the Right
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 by taking the value of the land as on the date on which the notification is issued, the notification shall be issued not later than sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. We have already pointed out that the same was not complied and hence, contempt proceedings are initiated.
27. Now notification is already issued and also in detail discussed about the period of sixty (60) days, which is extended to one hundred (100) days and hence, continuing of contempt proceedings in respect of direction Nos.(ii) and (iv) also doesn't arise.
28. Now the counsel appearing for the complainants brought to notice of this Court the direction No.3 that irrespective of the option chosen, the State shall make payment of damages towards the use of properties from the time of possession that was unauthorisedly taken to the date on which the possession is handed at Rs.15/- per
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS square feet per month being 0.5% on the value of the properties as agreed to be paid under the compromise in W.P.No.207059/2024 and connected matters.
29. It is not in dispute that earlier compromise was entered in W.P.No.207059/2024 and this Court also taken note of earlier disposing off the petitions by the learned Single Judge in connected matters with regard to the similar questions involved in the matter as the relief is sought in the writ petitions and it is also not in dispute that an amount was deposited, particularly in W.P.No.202702/2015 an amount of Rs.41,46,512/- and in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 also reiterated the same i.e., to an extent of 330 square feet in W.P.No.202702/2015 of the properties belonging to the petitioner.
30. When such deposit was made in 2015 and in view of direction by the learned Single Judge, the fact that the damages were caused towards the use of the properties from the time of possession that was
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS unauthorisedly taken to the date on which the possession was handed over is also not in dispute.
31. When such being the case, the amount which was already deposited to the tune of Rs.41,46,512/- to be adjusted in view of directions of the learned Single Judge in direction No.(iii) and surplus amount could be adjusted towards the award to be passed in view of the notification issued by the respondents consequent upon the direction Nos.2 and 4 of learned Single Judge.
32. When such material were also taken note of and as observed in the writ petitions, question of continuing the contempt proceedings doesn't arise in view of detailed discussion made above and all the directions are made by issuing notification as well as the adjustment as directed above. Hence, we have given conscious application of mind regarding contempt as well as writ appeals and in view of compliance of the direction given by the learned Single judge, question of framing of charges against the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB WA No. 200207 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025 CCC No. 200122 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS respondents doesn't arise. Therefore, contempt proceeding has to be dropped.
33. So also the grounds which have been urged in the writ appeals, particularly with regard to taking of possession is concerned, already notification is issued in view of the direction No.2 of the learned Single Judge, the question of handing over the possession also doesn't arise since the property which was used by taking the possession though unauthorisedly, but for the public purpose i.e., for widening the road and consequently writ appeals are also does not survive for consideration since the notification already issued and only remaining process to be done is passing of award and hence question of delivering the possession does not arise as undertaken by the respondents.
34. With the above observations, the contempt proceedings are dropped and writ appeals are disposed of as the question of handing over the possession as observed by the learned Single Judge doesn't arise in view
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5176-DB
WA No. 200207 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 200108 of 2025
CCC No. 200122 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
of subsequent developments of issuance of the
notification.
35. The respondents have placed on record the action initiated against erring officials as directed. Hence, directed to submit the report regarding the result of action taken against the erring officials before this Court within three months.
In view of disposal W.A.No.200207/2024, W.A.No.200239/2024 and W.A.No.200241/2024, I.A.No.2/2024 in the respective appeals do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85 CT:NI