- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB CCC No. 3 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CCC NO. 3 OF 2024 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. G. LAKSHMI W/O. LATE K. G. GIRIRAJ AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS OCC. HOUSE WIFE R/AT SEEGETHODU VILLAGE GONIKOPPAL POST VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 213. …COMPLAINANT (BY MS. SWETA ROY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI L.S. CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR KATARIA, IAS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (LAND GRANTS AND LAND REVENUE) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.505 AND 506, SACHIVALAYA 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDINGS ANNEXE, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI VENKAT RAJA IAS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT AT MADIKERI - 571 201. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB CCC No. 3 of 2024 3. SRI S.N. NARAGUNDA TAHASILDAR SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT AT SOMWARPET - 571 236. 4. SRI KIRAN GOWRAIAH TAHASILDAR KUSHALNAGAR TALUK AT KUSHALNAGAR KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234. …ACCUSED 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. ...PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHERE IN SHE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 PASSED IN WP 18824/2017 (KLR-RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGLURU AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED PERSONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB CCC No. 3 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Following order was passed by learned Single Judge on 28.04.2017, "The plea of the petitioner is that in terms of the Annexures produced herein, it is the duty of the State to grant the land to him. 2. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the same would be considered in the manner known to law. 3. In view of the above, the petition is disposed off. Respondents are directed to consider the grant of the land to the petitioner in accordance with law." 2. This contempt petition came to be filed on 02.01.2024 alleging breach of the aforesaid order. The order related to consideration by the respondents the grant of land to the petitioner. There is no time limit specified by learned Single Judge for the purpose of consideration. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB CCC No. 3 of 2024 3. Apart from the above aspect, it is manifest that the order was passed on 28.04.2017 by learned Single Judge and the contempt petition was filed after a gap of almost six and half years. 4. However, learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar invites attention of the court to the memo dated 20.01.2025 along with which copy of the endorsement dated 16.01.2025 is produced, whereby the application of the complainant's husband came to be rejected on the ground that the applicant was not an ex-serviceman. Be that as it may. 5. About the Endorsement dated 16.01.2025 learned advocate Ms. Sweta Roy for the complainant vehemently submitted that it is only after the contempt petition was filed, the endorsement came to be passed by the authority. This aspect pales into insignificance inasmuch as what was directed by learned Single Judge was without any specification of time limit to consider the case of the petitioner which was considered. Secondly the petition, as stated above, is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12586-DB CCC No. 3 of 2024 6. The directions of the learned Single Judge has been complied with as the case of the petitioner is considered. 7. In the aforesaid view, the court does not see any further survival for this contempt petition, it is accordingly disposed of as not surviving. It will be open for the complainant to challenge the endorsement, if so advised, by instituting independent proceedings in accordance with law in respect of which, however, this Court does not express any opinion on merit. In view of disposal of the petition, the interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1