- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8014-DB CCC No. 138 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CCC NO. 138 OF 2025 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUDHA SUDHEENDRA KOLLOL W/O. SUDHEENDRA NARAYAN KALLOL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS C/O "SUMMANE" NO.42/1, S.F.H.S, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 096. SINCE DEAD BY HER LR:- SRI SUDHEENDRA NARAYAN KALLOL S/O. LATE NARAYAN KALLOL AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.42/1, "SUMMANE" S.F.H.S. NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 096. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI N. JAYARAM THE COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8014-DB CCC No. 138 of 2025 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020. 2. SRI UMESH THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-I BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020. …ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO SECURE THE ACCUSED HEREIN, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.24092/2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 01.02.2019 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I. ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8014-DB CCC No. 138 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vasanth Kumar H.T. for the petitioner-complainant. 2. Filed under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in this petition, commission of contempt of court is alleged in respect of directions issued by learned Single Judge as per his order 1st February 2019 while disposing of the writ petition, contained in paragraph 10 of the order extracted herein, “10. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsement dated 21.07.2016 issued by the Respondent No.2 at Annexure-N; a consequential Writ of Mandamus also issues directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation dated 01.04.2016 at Annexure-M for execution and registration of the sale deed of the subject site within a period of eight weeks.” 3. Thus, the direction was to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1st April 2016 for execution and registration of the Sale Deed of the Site in question within ten weeks. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8014-DB CCC No. 138 of 2025 3.1 While the order brought under the contempt jurisdiction was passed on 1st February 2019, whether contempt petition can be filed on 31st January 2025. 3.2 Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as under, “20. Limitation for actions for contempt.— No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.” 3.3 The above provision contains a bar from initiating contempt proceedings after expiry of a period of one year from the date when the contempt could be said to have been committed. Learned Single Judge directed to consider the representation for executing the Sale Deed for the Site within eight weeks. Therefore, evidently, period of one year for the petitioner-complainant started at the expiry of eight weeks. After one year, the cause of action ceased for the petitioner to institute the contempt petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8014-DB CCC No. 138 of 2025 4. It was sought to be submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after the above order dated 1st February 2019, the same was challenged by the Bangalore Development Authority in Writ Appeal No.212 of 2020, which was dismissed on 9th February 2023. Petitioner stated that therefore he could not file the contempt. 4.1 It is the further case that the site in question was not earmarked in the layout plan and that despite the dismissal of the appeal of the BDA, the respondent did not comply with the direction of executing the Sale Deed. 5. The court is afraid that mere filing of appeal by the respondent-BDA and dismissal thereof at a subsequent stage would have the effect of extending the one year period contemplated in Section 20 of the Act. In any case, even if reckoned from the date of dismissal of the writ appeal of the BDA, which was 9th February 2023, since the contempt petition was filed on 31st January 2025, the same remained beyond limitation of one year. 6. The contempt is barred in view of Section 20 of the Act. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8014-DB CCC No. 138 of 2025 7. The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3