- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 290 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SMT. SARASWATHI V W/O VISHWANATHA SHETTY AGED78 YEARS R/AT SAADANA HOUSE KODIYAL POST, VIA BELLARI TALUKA SULLIA, D.K.574239. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ SHASTRY – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY – ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. RAVI KUMAR M.R. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K.DISTRICT-575001 (AMENDED VCO DATED 03.03.2023 ) 2. DR. RAJKUMAR KATHRI PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.SBUILDING, BENGALURU-560002. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G – AGA) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 IN RESPECT OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE ORDER DATED 23/07/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2019 IN W.A. NO.8735/2012 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- D FURTHER DIRECT THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 TO COLLECT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GRANTED LAND AT 300 TIMES OF LAND REVENUE AND ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF PERMANENT OWNERSHIP IN FAVOUR OF THE COMPLAINANT. THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This Contempt proceeding is filed by the complainant against the respondents/accused in view of disobedience of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23692/2012 (LR) dated 23.07.2012 vide Annexure–A and confirmed by the order dated 15.02.2019 in WA.No.8735/2012 (LR). 2. Learned counsel Sri Pruthviraj Shastry appears on behalf of learned counsel Sri G.Balakrishna Shastry who is on record for the complainant. Learned AGA Smt Namitha Mahesh B.G for respondents/accused is present. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020 3. Subsequent to rendering the above said order in WP.No.23692/2012, an appeal in WA.No.8735/2012 (LR) was preferred challenging the order rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.23692/2012 and the same was dismissed on 15.02.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed a memo seeking deletion of name of accused No.2-Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, as accused No.2 is not a necessary party in the above contempt. Therefore, memo is placed on record. Registry is directed to delete the name of accused No.2. 5. Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent/accused No.1. 6. In this contempt proceeding, the complainant seeks to initiate the contempt proceeding against respondents/accused in respect of the contempt of the order dated 23.07.2012 in WP.No.23692/2012 and confirmed by the order dated 15.02.2019 in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020 W.A.No.8735/2012. However, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which 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. 7. Further, it is also relevant to refer judgment rendered by The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 in paragraphs 52 and 53 observed as under: 52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice. 53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2553-DB CCC No. 290 of 2020 one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court. 8. Keeping in view Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and so also, the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, it is deemed appropriate that the present contempt proceeding do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RJ