- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1102 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI N. SURESH S/O. LATE H. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 2. SMT. N. SARVAMANGALA D/O. LATE H. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.11, PATEL MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT THODATAGUDADAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 561 208. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI C. RAMALAKSHMAIAH THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., A.G.A) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DEFAULT/DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.16061 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR). 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 petition has been initiated by the complainants for disobedience of the order dated 08.09.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16061 of 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR), wherein the writ petition was disposed of with a specific direction to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, to conduct the phodi work in respect of the land in question, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. Sri Nagarajappa A., learned counsel for the complainants, and Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the accused, are physically present. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 3. Sri Nagarajappa A., learned counsel for the complainants, submits that in terms of the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.21 of 1998, the names of the complainants have been entered in the land records in respect of their respective shares in Survey No.8, Huchanapalya Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Thereafter, the complainants made an application seeking phodi and durasti in terms of the decree passed by the trial Court. Since the phodi work was not carried out, the complainants preferred Writ Petition No.16061 of 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR) before this Court. Even after passing the order on writ side, no phodi has been carried out. He submits that the issues in between the complainants and the accused have gone up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and refers to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1022 of 2024 dated 16.01.2024 arising out of the order dated 03.11.2023 passed in this contempt petition. In the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that "However, we make it clear that any of the proceedings/contempt case instituted by the parties shall be decided uninfluenced by the observations made in para 2 of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 impugned order.' He submits that after a lapse of twenty years, against the judgment of the trial Court in Original Suit No.21 of 1998, the State has preferred Regular First Appeal No.2407 of 2023 against the person who is no more, and the same is pending consideration. However, so far, no phodi and durasti work has been conducted. Hence, he prays for intervention of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to take punitive action against the accused. 4. Smt. Namitha Mahesh, Additional Government Advocate, submits that she has filed the Additional Affidavit dated 7-4-2025 of Sri Vijaykumar, Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, and prays for consideration of the reasons stated in the affidavit, and for dropping of the contempt petition. 5. The Additional Affidavit dated 7-4-2025 reads as under: ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT I, Vijaykumar R. S/o. Rajanaik R, aged about 30 years, presently working as Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 1. I am working as Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk from 17.06.2023 and I am arrayed as 1st Accused in this case. I am well conversant with the facts of the case; I am competent to swear this Affidavit based on records available in our office. 2. I respectfully submit that the above Contempt Petition had been filed by Complainants for disobedience of the Order dated 08.09.2022 in Writ Petition No.16061/2022 (KLR-RR/SUR), final Order passed by the Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.16061/2022 is reads as follows: 4. Consequently, this Writ Petition stands disposed off with a specific direction to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, to conduct the Phodi Work in respect of the land in question, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order". 3. I respectfully submit that I have already filed a compliance affidavit on 3.12.2023 stating that in pursuance of the Notice Contempt CCC.No.1102/2022, I sought for report from the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru North Taluk with respect to Survey No.8 of Huchanapalya village, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and after verification of the records, it is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 found that father of the Complainants Sri H. Nanjappa has filed application for grant of land bearing Survey No.8 of Huchanapalya village, Bengaluru North Taluk in Form No.50 on 21.07.1991 and after scrutiny of the records, said application came to be rejected by the Land Grant committee by its Resolution dated 04.04.1998. The copy of the Form No.50 filed by the father of the Complainants and the Resolution dated 04.04.1998 along with typed and translated copies are produced in the earlier compliance affidavit as ANNEXURE-R1 AND ANNEXURE-R2 respectively. It is submitted that an Appeal against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.21/1998 has also been filed before this Hon'ble Court in Regular First Appeal No.2407/2023 along with seeking permission of this Hon'ble Court for condoning delay and the same is awaiting appearance of the complainants herein. The copy of the application along with the form no.1 to 5 forwarded to the DDLR is herewith produced as Annexure-R3. The Missing Records Committee has rejected the application to re-build the records on the ground that mutation register is not available. The copy of the said proceedings is herewith produced as Annexure-R4. All these documents are produced in the earlier compliance affidavit. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 4. In furtherance of the earlier compliance affidavits, it is now being submitted that an endorsement dated 11.03.2025 has been issued to the complainant indicating the order dated 25.2.2025 passed by the Missing Records Committee produced as per Annexure-R4. The copy of the said endorsement is herewith produced as Annexure-R5. The copy of the postal receipt is herewith produced as Annexure-R6. 5. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the order passed by the Committee at Annexure-R4, I am unable to comply with the order of the Learned Single Judge passed dated 08.09.2022 In Writ Petition No.16061/2022 (KLR-RR/SUR). The complainant has the recourse of challenging the said order passed at Annexure-R4 in an appropriate proceeding. The same has been now complied by way of issuing an endorsement to the complainants. 6. I have completely complied with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and put in my best efforts to conduct the Phodi Work in respect of the land in question. However, in the absence of any original records pertaining to the grant of the said land, I was duty bound to refer the said case to the Missing Records Committee and the Committee has taken a decision at Annexure-R4 that none of the original records can be re-built." - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 6. Keeping in view the affidavit submitted by accused No.1, and in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO v. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein at paragraph No.52, it has 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." - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 7. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRITHAWI NATH RAM v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261, wherein in paragraph No.8, it has observed as under: "8. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible." - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 8. We have perused the affidavit of accused No.1- Tahsildar, the contempt petition and the impugned order. It appears that the father of the complainants, Sri H. Nanjappa, had filed application for grant of land, bearing Survey No.8 of Huchanapalya Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, in Form No.50 and the same was rejected by the Land Grant Committee. Later, a suit was filed in Original Suit No.21 of 1998 and the same was decreed. Soon after passing of order by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16061 of 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR), the matter was placed before the Missing Records Committee as records pertaining to Survey No.8 was missing. However, the Committee rejected the application to re-build the records on the ground that the mutation register is not available vide Annexure-R4. Accordingly, accused No.1 issued endorsement vide Annexure-R5. Therefore, accused No.1 is unable to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the complainants have the recourse of challenging the order passed at Annexure-R4 in appropriate proceedings. 9. Therefore, keeping in view the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra, so also the affidavit in detail filed by accused No.1, and more so, the provisions of Section - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14642-DB CCC No. 1102 of 2022 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this contempt petition does not survive for consideration to take action against the accused. Consequently, this contempt petition is hereby dropped. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the complainants' seeks liberty to challenge the endorsement. 11. Liberty, as sought for, is hereby granted in accordance with law. In view of the dropping of the contempt petition, pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8