- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB CCC No. 429 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.429 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAMAKKA W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SRI H. SUBRAMANI S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SRIRAMANAGARA, RAMASANDRA ROAD MULBAGAL TOWN AND TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAVI Y. TAHASILDAR, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …ACCUSED (BY SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR A-1 AND PROFORMA R-2) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB CCC No. 429 of 2023 THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, WHEREIN HE PRAYS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.8772/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 17.08.2021 BY SECURING HIM AND ALLOWING THE PETITION. THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS 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 has been initiated by the complainants against respondents/accused relating to the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.8772/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR). 2. There is no representation of Sri. S. Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for complainants. Even after accommodating the complainants for four times, neither the complainants nor learned counsel has come forward to cure the defects. 3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents/accused is present before the Court physically and submits to consider the compliance affidavit dated 07.03.2024 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB CCC No. 429 of 2023 along with Annexure-R1, translated copy of Annexure-R1 and copy served acknowledgment, which is filed by respondent No.1/accused. 4. This contempt proceeding has been initiated by complainants after lapse of 128 days. 5. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to refer to 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 or its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged have been committed." 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision of law and the provisions of Section 2(b) and Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 relating to take action against respondents/accused, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein, in paragraph No.53 of the said judgment, it is revealed as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB CCC No. 429 of 2023 "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 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." 7. It is necessary to refer to the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the compliance affidavit, which read as under: "3. I humbly submit that upon considering the Representation of the Complainant dated 31.01.2021 produced as Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. In pursuance of the same, I have issued Notice dated 12.02.2023 calling upon the Complainant to produce all the original documents within five days from the date of receipt of the said Notice through 'Registered Post Acknowledgement Due'. However, the Complainant has not produced any original documents, on the otherhand, produced photo copy of RTCs. On verification of the records maintained in our Office, it is noticed that none of the documents produced by the Complainant tallied with the documents maintained in our Office. 4. I humbly submit that upon verification of documents maintained in our office, there is no records are available pertaining to grant of land to the Complainant. As such, I have issued an Endorsement rejecting the prayer of the Complainant on 25.01.2024. Copy of the said Endorsement is produced herewith as Annexure-R1." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8941-DB CCC No. 429 of 2023 8. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the decree has been obtained by the Civil Court by initiation of the original proceeding, but, it is indicated as 'phut kharab lands' in the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2002 passed by the Court below in O.S.No.36/2017. The decree has been obtained by the plaintiff, who is the complainant in this matter. But, State has not been made as a party to the said proceeding. 9. Keeping in view of the aforesaid status and submission made by learned Addl. Government Advocate, it is deemed appropriate that the compliance affidavit, which is made by respondent No.1/accused is taken on record and keeping in view the provision of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there is no consequence to consider this contempt proceeding. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4