Karnataka High Court
Nandakishori W/O Shivamallikarjun ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 April, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB
CCC No. 100340 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100340 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NANDAKISHORI W/O. SHIVAMALLIKARJUN JAVALI
D/O. PRABHAYYA GHANTI,
AGE. 65 YEARS,
R/O. KOKILA PRABHU NIVAS,
NEAR AMRUTH THEATRE,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SRI. RAJENDAR KUMAR KATARIA,
SECRETARY, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by 2. SRI GURUDATTA HEGDE,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA KALMATH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
KARNATAKA
3. SRI RUDRESH GOLI,
THE COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
HUBBALLI-580021, DIST. DHARWAD.
....ACCUSED
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...PRO-FORMA RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB
CCC No. 100340 of 2023
(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR A3 AND
R4;
A2-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH;
A1-NOTICE SERVED.)
THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE AN
ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED AUTHORITIES FOR THE CONTEMPT
OF THIS COURT FOR WILFULLY NOT COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER
DATED 29.05.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.100756/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, FOR
COSTS OF THIS PETITION AND ETC.,.
THIS CONTEMPT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 16.04.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, C.M. POONACHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present contempt petition is filed under Article 215
of the Constitution of India and Section 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience
of the order dated 29.05.2023 passed in
W.P.No.100756/2023.
2. The complainant was the writ petitioner. It is the
case of the complainant that a road was sought to be formed
in her property bearing Sy.No.53/B to an extent of 15 guntas
in Hubballi city in Unakal village (coming under the urban
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB
CCC No. 100340 of 2023
agglomeration of Hubballi Dharwad Area), without any
acquisition proceedings being initiated. This Court, vide its
order dated 29.05.2023, allowed the writ petition and passed
the following:
ORDER
i) "Writ petition is disposed of.
ii) In case respondent No.3 intends to acquire the property belonging to the petitioner, they shall initiate appropriate proceedings of acquisition by way of notification thereby duly notifying the petitioner and thereafter take necessary action in accordance to law.
iii) Till such legal process of acquisition is completed by respondent No.3, it shall not forcibly take possession or conduct developmental activities in the land belonging to the petitioner without following due process of law."
3. Alleging disobedience of the said order dated 29.05.2023, the present contempt petition is filed.
4. Upon issuance of notice in the contempt proceedings, the respondents/accused appeared and an affidavit was filed on 05.08.2024 by the Commissioner, -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation1, wherein it has been stated as follows:
"6. I respectfully submit that, after the Order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.100756/2023 wherein this Hon'ble Court reserved liberty to acquire the property of the Complainant/Petitioner. Pursuant to the same, with an intention to acquire the property of the Complainant's land and in order to seek consent for acquisition of the Complainant's land, the Accused has issued notice on 07.03.2024 and 15.06.2024, pursuant to such notices, the Complainant was called for a meeting in order to seek consent for acquisition of the land wherein this Accused after taking into consideration the land value which was obtained from the Assistant Commissioner quoted a sum of Rs.57,32,972/- for Consent Award.
7. It is submitted that, in response to our offer, the Complainant rejected the same. The rejection of the offer was placed before the General Body Meeting which took place on 29.02.2024. The General Body Meeting unanimously took decision that, if the Complainant not agrees for the consent award, the proposal for acquisition has to be dropped. Since the Complainant not agrees for the consent award, the proposal for acquisition of the Complainant's land has been dropped. In this regard, the Order dated 29.06.2024 is also communicated by the accused. Copy of the Order dated 29.06.2024 is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT NO.1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.1
Hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023
8. It is submitted that, since the intention of the acquisition of the complainant land has been dropped, the accused will not undertake any possession of the Complainant's land or conduct any developmental activities in the land belongs to the Complainant."
(Emphasis Supplied.)
5. The complainant vide affidavit dated 24.10.2024, at paragraphs No.4, 5 and 6 has stated as follows:
"4. I state that the Accused Authorities on 29.06.2024 issued an endorsement to the Complainant stating that the Compensation amount of Rs.57,32,978/-(Rupees Fifty Seven Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Eight only) to be awarded as compensation for the acquisition of 11 guntas was respectfully denied by the Complainant as the Compensation Amount offered by the Accused to Complainant was too meagre.
5. I state that the Accused Authorities have further notified in the endorsement that if the complainant is not willing to accept the compensation amount offered then the authorities are willing to withdraw the acquisition proceedings against the Complainant.
6. I state that since acquisition of the land, the Accused authorities have constructed a tar road and through KEB (Karnataka Electricity Board) have installed in total 13 (Thirteen) Electricity Poles i.e., 8 (Eight) poles on one side and 5 (Five) on the other side of the road on the said Complainant's land and in case of withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings, the Accused authorities may kindly be directed to remove all the constructions made on the land and to restore and return it to the Complainant -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 as it was before the acquisition proceedings.
I further kindly request before this Hon'ble Court to direct the Accused Authorities to pay damages for carrying out such acquisition proceedings without following due process of law."
(Emphasis Supplied.)
6. This Court, vide order dated 15.11.2024, ordered as follows:
"This Court by order dated 29.05.2023 in WP No.100756/2023, directed the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the property belongs to the petitioner. Since the order has not been complied, this contempt has been filed.
Now the Corporation has filed an affidavit stating that they don't want the property of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that they have already utilized the property and formed road. If the respondents don't want to acquire the property, let them restore the land in original position.
Learned Govt. Advocate prays a week's time to comply the order.
List this matter on 23.11.2024."
(emphasized supplied)
7. Subsequently, this Court noticing a copy of the google image with sketch of the complainant's property, vide order dated 21.02.2025, opined that there must be an effort of negotiated settlement and directed the jurisdictional -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 Deputy Commissioner to conduct a conciliation meeting with the complainant and the Commissioner of the Corporation.
8. A copy of the proceedings of the meeting dated 25.02.2025 was placed on record, which was noticed by this Court in the order dated 28.02.2025. Thereafter an affidavit dated 20.03.2025 of the Commissioner of the Corporation has been filed. Paragraphs No.6 to 11 of the said affidavit dated 20.03.2025 read as under:
"(6) I respectfully submit that, after filing of Affidavit by my predecessor and taking stand that, the Corporation not intending to acquire the Complainant's land. Therefore, the Complainant filed the Affidavit before this Hon'ble Court on 24.10.2024 requesting for a direction to the Accused to withdraw the acquisition proceedings against the Complainant and requested to restore the Complainant land.
(7) I respectfully submit that, it is stand of the accused that, they have not constructed new road on the alleged /disputed land of the Complainant. However, the area on which the Complainant claiming as the owner on which road was existing since from 1965 and initially it is the Public Works Department was formed the concrete road by inviting a Tender. It is only some repair work which was needed was done by the Corporation. It is submitted that, when the same was brought before this Hon'ble Court, the Complainant himself filed an Affidavit requesting the Authority to withdraw the acquisition proceedings against the Complainant and restore -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 the Complaint's land as it is before the acquisition proceedings. When the Authorities tried to identify the boundaries of the Complainant's land, the Complainant disputed the boundaries. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court in earlier occasion observed to conduct the survey and identify the boundaries and thereafter clear the tapping work which is done on the road. Therefore, manual survey was conducted on 29.11.2024 to identify the boundaries of Complainant's land. However, the Complainant who was present at the time of survey not agreed for manual survey. Therefore, on the request, the survey was deferred by the Surveyor and once again on 05.12.2.2024, the digital survey was conducted in the presence of the Complaint. Copy of the photographs which establishes that the Complainant was present on both the days when the survey was conducted are collectively herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT NO.1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(8) It is respectfully submitted that, after the survey was conducted and in terms of the survey sketch, a notice was issued to the Complainant on 12.12.2024 for taking further course of action on the basis of survey conducted by the Surveyor. Copy of the Notice issued to the Complainant on 12.12.2024 Is herewith produced and marked DOCUMENT NO.2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(9) I respectfully submit that, however the Complainants have not come forward accepting the survey conducted by the Surveyor.
(10) It is submitted that, pursuant to the Order passed by this Hon'ble Court and as per the survey conducted by the authorities, the accused persons issued notice to the Complainant on 12.03.2025 fixing the date for accepting the land and demarcating the boundaries and accepting the land. Copy of the Notice issued on 12.03.2025 is -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.3.
(11) I respectfully submit that, however, the Complainant not accepted the notice issued by the Authorities. Therefore, they have annexed the Notice on the Complainants' premises. It is further submitted that, the Complainant not agreed for accepting the survey conducted by the Department of Survey and the sketch annexed to the said survey. Therefore, she addressed a letter to the Accused stating that, they intended to challenge the survey sketch which was prepared in terms of the digital survey conducted on 05.12.2024. Copy of the letter submitted by the Complainant on 13.03.2025 is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT NO.4.
(emphasized supplied)
9. The learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the petitioner directed that if the Corporation intends to acquire the property of the petitioner, appropriate proceedings for acquisition was required to be taken and till such time the Corporation was directed not to forcibly take possession or conduct developmental activities in the land belonging to the petitioner without following the due process of law. It is forthcoming from the subsequent events that has been placed on record in the present contempt proceedings that an effort was made to acquire the land of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 complainant. However, since the complainant did not agree on the price offered for acquisition of the land, the Corporation was directed to return the land of the complainant that had been utilized, after removing the developments, having regard to the fact that the complainant had contended that a portion of the land has been utilized and a tar road has been constructed. In order to identify the land, this Court ordered for a survey. Accordingly the official respondents have conducted a survey. However, the complainant has disputed the correctness of the survey conducted by the official respondents.
10. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel Sri P.G.Mogali appearing for the complainant that the land of the complainant has been illegally occupied by the respondents/accused and either the said land has to be returned after removing improvements or adequate compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is required to be
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 paid. However the learned Government Advocate Sri G.K.Hiregoudar contends that the road on the land of the complainant is in existence since 1965 and no new road has been formed. That the respondents are ready to return the land and for the said purpose survey has been conducted and the area of the land of the petitioner/complainant has been demarcated and the complainant has been notified to take possession of the demarcated portion of the land.
11. However the complainant disputes the extent of land that has been demarcated in the survey conducted by the respondent officials.
12. In the course of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant points out from various material on record that identity and location of the complainant's property as has been identified by the official respondents in the survey conduced by them is incorrect and the land of the complainant is more than what has been demarcated. Learned counsel for the complainant also seeks to rely upon various judgments as to the nature of acquisition, circumstances under which acquisition can be made and if
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 possession has been taken there is lapse of acquisition proceedings.
13. At this juncture it is relevant to notice that in the present contempt proceedings the scope of jurisdiction of this Court is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.U.N.Bora, Ex.Chief Executive Officer and others vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another2, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused, has held as follows:
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction 2 (2022) 1 SCC 101.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
(emphasized supplied)
14. It is clear from the settled propositions of law as noticed above that no adjudication of the rights of the contesting parties can be done in the contempt proceedings.
15. In the present case the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition has ordered that if the Corporation intends to acquire the property of the petitioner, appropriate proceedings of acquisition is required to be initiated and till such time the Corporation shall not forcibly take possession or conduct developmental activities in the land belonging to the petitioner without following due process of law.
16. It is the specific case of the Corporation in the present proceedings that the road has been in existence
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023 since 1965 and no new road is sought to be constructed over the land of the complainant. In any event, the Corporation has offered to return the land of the complainant that has been utilized for the road, after removing the developments. However the complainant disputes the identity, location and extent of the land as has been identified by the Corporation.
17. Having regard to the scope of controversy that has arisen due to the subsequent developments in the course of the present contempt proceedings, as has been noticed above, since disputed question of fact are required to be adjudicated in order to resolve the controversy between the parties and since it is not open to carry out such adjudication in the present contempt proceedings, it is clear that there is no willful disobedience by the respondents of the orders passed by this Court and the present contempt proceedings are dropped, reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for adequate reliefs.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:6918-DB CCC No. 100340 of 2023
18. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1