Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shivamma vs Shri Venkatachalapathy on 21 September, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CCC NO.800/2017 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O SIDDAPPAJI
D/O LATE RACHAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.44, 1ST MAIN ROAD
12TH CROSS, MTS LAYOUT
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN
BENGALURU-560060
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI.ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI VENKATACHALAPATHY
(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT)
THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI.D.NAGARAJ, AGA)
2
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 AND 12
OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE
COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO SUMMON THE ACCUSED
AND PUNISH HIM FOR THE CONTEMPT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT FOR THE WILLFUL NON-
COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTION AND THEREBY
COMMITTING DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED
08/02/2017, (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P.NO.43910/2016.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR HEARING BEFORE
FRAMING OF CHARGES THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J.,
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The basis of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is the breach and non- compliance of the order dated 8.2.2017 passed by this Court whereby, the direction was given to the accused to implement the order at Annexure-J which was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Revenue. 3
2. We may record that, when this matter was considered on the earlier occasion on 25.7.2017, this Court had passed the following order:
"In terms of the order dated 08.02.2017 passed in W.P.No.43910 of 2016 eight weeks' time was granted for implementation of Annexure-'J'. The same was not done within time. Hence the present contempt.
At the request of the learned Additional Government Advocate, the matter was adjourned on 11.07.2017. Even as on date, the order has not been complied with.
Hence, post next week to hear before framing of charges.
Accused to be present."
3. Thereafter, the accused had remained present and the matter was once again considered on 21.8.2017 and the following order was passed:
4
"We would have taken action. However, the accused who is personally present in the Court and is identified by Mr.D.Nagaraj, learned Additional Government Advocate states that the order will be complied with on or before 23.8.2017 and reporting will be made to this Court on 28.8.2017.
It is made clear that if this assurance is not complied with, the matter will be viewed strictly and contempt will be aggravated . The accused shall remain personally present on 28.8.2017 with the documents showing the compliance of the order."
4. Thereafter, memo was filed on behalf of the accused on 11.9.2017 together with order dated 29th August 2017 passed by the accused whereby the transfer of Khata of land bearing survey No.36 measuring 5-00 acres of Kechanapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, was ordered in accordance with the order of the Special Deputy 5 Commissioner dated 31.5.2015 (wrongly typed but, the correct date is 31.8.2015) but, three conditions were incorporated; first condition was, subject to final order of the Writ Appeal which may be filed by the Government against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2017 (which is the basis in the present contempt proceedings), second was, subject to final order of the writ petition which may be filed by the Government against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 31.5.2015 (wrongly typed but, the correct date is 31.8.2015) and the third was, subject to final order in the appeal against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 24.4.1973.
5. When this matter was heard yesterday, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant had made two fold grievances; one was that, there was no direction by the Court in the writ petition to implement 6 the order by putting any condition and in furtherance to the same, it was also contended that, condition nos.1 and 2 if made for indefinite period, Government may file the appeal or may not file the appeal and even if the appeals are filed, the cloud on the title would remain for indefinite period. It was also submitted that condition no.3 is ex-facie absurd because the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition as back as on 24.4.1973 could not be challenged in the year 2017 after such a long period of more than 35 years.
6. In response thereto, learned AGA had brought to our notice that the Government has passed the order on 28.8.2017 as well as on 6.9.2017 whereby, the sanction has been granted by the Government to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge in the main writ petition as well as the writ petition against the order of the Special Deputy 7 Commissioner. Hence, it was submitted that the accused acted in bona fide.
7. It was prima facie observed by the Court that, even if the accused is acting in bona fide, so far as condition no.(3) is concerned, there was absolutely no basis therefore, it was not expected for the accused to incorporate condition No.(3). Further, in any case, condition nos.1 and 2 could not be allowed to operate for an indefinite period leaving the liberty to the Government to drag on the litigation and thereby to continue to have the cloud for revenue entry so made.
8. Learned AGA in response thereto had yesterday declared that corrigendum shall be issued by the Special Tahsildar and the same shall be reported to the Court. Today, a memo is tendered whereby the corrigendum dated September 20, 2017 has been issued, the translated version of which reads as under: 8
"In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner-2, Bangalore South Sub-Division dated:
31.08.2015 has been complied with and ordered for Khata transfer subject to some conditions in respect of Sy.No.36, measuring 5-00 acres of Kenchanapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
In the meanwhile, during hearing in the enquiry of the contempt petition No.800/2017, dated: 20.09.2017 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and on hearing the argument of the petitioner was pleased to observe that, the condition No.(3) mentioned in the order passed on 29.8.2017 shall be removed.
1. Hence, the condition No.3 mentioned in the order passed from this office in respect of land in question has been deleted.
2. In case of any interim order passed/implemented from any court within 9 six weeks of receipt of this order in respect of condition Sl.No.(1) and (2) will continue. Failing which the conditions shall stands cancelled.
It is hereby informed that there are no other change/amendment in this order."
9. The aforesaid shows that, condition no.(3) stands deleted and condition Nos.1 and 2 have to remain in operation for a period of six weeks and if no interim orders are passed in the proceedings of the writ petition or writ appeal as the case may be, the condition nos.1 and 2 are to stand as cancelled.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we find that, following circumstances has resulted:
(a) The compliance of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 31.5.2015 (wrongly typed but, the correct date is 31.8.2015) for correction in the revenue entry is implemented but, subject to 10 condition nos.1 and 2 for contemplated writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge (which is the basis in the contempt proceedings) and contemplated writ petition against the order dated 31.5.2015 (wrongly typed but, the correct date is 31.8.2015) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner,
(b) Both the aforesaid conditions are to remain in force only for a period of six weeks and upon failure to get any interim order, the aforesaid condition also are to stand as cancelled.
11. Under the circumstances, we find that, it would be for the parties to defend the proceedings if any resorted to either in the writ appeal or in the writ petition but, as on today, subject to the above rider of six weeks, it can be said that the order is complied with. 11
12. We would have further considered the matter for imposition of appropriate costs by way of penalty upon the accused but, considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that, since the sanction is also granted by the State Government for initiating the litigation, the action cannot be said to be without any bona fide.
13. Hence, we have refrained from imposing costs by way of penalty upon the accused but, suffice it to observe that, the tendency on the part of the accused not to comply with the order of this Court within the time frame and even thereafter under the guise of contemplated litigation which may be initiated, deserve to be deprecated. We leave it at that.
14. No further order deserves to be passed. Hence the present proceedings are not required to be continued any further.
12
Disposed of accordingly. However, it is observed that if any writ appeal or writ petition is/are filed as referred to hereinabove, rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain open to be considered in accordance with law.
(JAYANT PATEL) JUDGE (B A PATIL) JUDGE Sk/-
Note:
As per the orders passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 7.10.2017 in the Note Sheet, Hon'ble Sri Justice B.S.Patil is nominated for signing the unsigned order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Sri Justice Jayant Patel and Hon'ble Sri Justice B.A.Patil in CCC No.800/2017 (Civil) in the light of Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959, Chapter XVI and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the 13 case of M/s.Gem Travels Vs. Syndicate Bank, reported in ILR 1995 KAR 3063.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE