- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB CCC No. 558 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH 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. 558 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SMT YASHODA VEERAMAYANNA W/O H R LAKSHMIANARAYANA AGED 66 YEARS R/AT NO 31375, NEUMA DRIVE CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 92234 USA. PRESENTLY R/AT C/O SMT VASANTHA VASU NO 4, BRIGADE PARK VIES BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 560004. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR – SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. AKASH B SHETTY - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PRASANNA KUMAR K.K. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (KIADB METRO) NO 14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560001. 2. SRI B M MARANNA AGED 80 YEARS S/O LATE MAYANNA Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB CCC No. 558 of 2022 R/AT NO 1101, 4TH BLOCK DR RAJ KUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560010. 3. SRI. B M VISHWANATH AGED 78 YEARS S/O LATE MAYANNA R/AT NO 1101, 4TH BLOCK DR RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560010. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY – AG FOR SRI. B B PATIL – ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO.1; SRI. G PANDURANGA – ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NOS. 2 & 3) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO FIND THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF COMMISSION OF CONTEMPT OF ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN WP NO.47161/2018 DATED 15.04.2019 AND WA NO.1844/2019 DATED 29.08.2019 (ANNEXURE-A AND B) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE SAME CONSEQUENTLY SENTENCE THE ACCUSED TO IMPRISONMENT. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB CCC No. 558 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt proceedings is initiated by the complainant against the respondents/accused for having deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.47161/2018 (LA-KIADB) dated 15.04.2019 vide Annexure-A and WA.No.1844/2019 (LA- KIADB) dated 29.08.2019 vide Annexure-B. 2. Learned Senior counsel Sri D.R Ravishankar appears for learned counsel Sri Akash.B.Shetty who is on record for the complainant. Learned AG Sri Shashikiran Shetty appears for learned counsel Sri B.B.Patil who is on record for Respondent/Accused No.1. Learned counsel Sri G.Panduranga for Respondents/Accused Nos.2 and 3 is present. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the complainant has taken us through the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.272/2020 c/w WP.No.358/2020 (LA- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB CCC No. 558 of 2022 KIADB) and also presses into service for consideration of the said order wherein paragraph No.5 indicates as that the impugned award deserves to be quashed and the matter be remitted back to Respondent No.2 – Spl.LAO for reconsideration afresh by directing the Respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision and pass suitable orders including passing a fresh award in accordance with law, after hearing all concerned parties including respondents herein and all other concerned persons within a period of three months after appearance of all the parties before Respondent No.2-Spl.LAO. 4. Learned AG for accused No.1 presses into service for consideration of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in WP.No.47161/2018 (LA-KIADB) dated 15.04.2019 and WA.No.1844/2019 (LA-KIADB) dated 29.08.2019. He further submits that Accused Nos.2 and 3 are receivers of the compensation award by the competent authority/Spl.LAO and this contempt proceeding is filed by the complainant after lapse of 3 years. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB CCC No. 558 of 2022 5. Keeping in view the contentious contentions made by the learned Senior counsel for complainant and learned AG for Respondent/Accused No.1, it is deemed appropriate 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. 6. Further, it is also relevant to refer the 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB CCC No. 558 of 2022 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 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. However, it is also relevant to refer paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of WP.No.47161/2018 dated 15.04.2019 wherein Para No.4 indicates as the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 has filed an application seeking permission to deposit the award amount before the jurisdictional court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act for short). The said application has been allowed. Para No.5 indicates as in view of the inter-se dispute between the petitioner and Respondent - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB CCC No. 558 of 2022 Nos.4 to 6, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 for redressal of their grievance before the reference court, wherein Respondent No.2 has to deposit the award amount under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. All the rights and contentions of the parties shall be adjudicate upon shares of the parties and take a decision in accordance with law. Thereafter, the compensation amount shall be disbursed accordingly. In the meanwhile, learned AG submits that in pursuance of the said order, compensation amount has been disbursed on 17.05.2019 at Annexure-R2. This submission is placed on record. 8. Keeping in view the paragraphs 4 and 5 of order passed in WP.No.47161/2018 dated 15.04.2019 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred supra, and also this contempt proceeding has been filed after lapse of 3 years, it is deemed appropriate that the present contempt proceeding do not survive for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1818-DB CCC No. 558 of 2022 consideration to proceed against the Respondents/Accused. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RJ