Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35382 (KAR)

SMT. PUSHPAMMA v. SMT SHILPA NAG IAS

CCC/1258/2023 · 2025-03-19

K Somashekar, Venkatesh Naik T

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11384-DB CCC No. 1258 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH 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.1258 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUSHPAMMA W/O. LATE SHIVASHANKARAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O. S. R. ROAD, 10TH WARD GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. 2. SRI B. S. KIRAN S/O. LATE SHIVASHANKARAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O. S. R. ROAD, 10TH WARD GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. 3. SRI B. S. KISHOR S/O. LATE SHIVASHANKARAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O. S. R. ROAD, 10TH WARD GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. 4. SRI B. S. KARTHIK S/O. LATE SHIVASHANKARAMURHTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O. S. R. ROAD, 10TH WARD GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11384-DB CCC No. 1258 of 2023 5. SRI G. S. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O. LATE G. V. SRIKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O. S. R. ROAD, 10TH WARD GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. 6. SMT. G. S. GAYATHRI D/O. LATE G. V. SRIKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O. S. R. ROAD, 10TH WARD GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. 7. SMT. G. S. VASANTHAKUMARI D/O. LATE G. V. SRIKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R R/O. S. R. ROAD, 10TH WARD GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. 8. SRI G. S. SUBRAMANYA S/O. LATE G. V. SRIKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O. S. R. ROAD, 10TH WARD GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. ALL THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI LOKESH S/O. PUTTANNA M. Y. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O. LAKSHMI VILAS 15TH CROSS, NANJANGUD TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11384-DB CCC No. 1258 of 2023 AND: 1. SMT. SHILPA NAG, IAS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 111. 2. SMT. GEETHA UDEDHA THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB DIVISION KOLLEGALA - 571 440. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …ACCUSED (BY SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHERE IN HE PRAYS INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR WILLFULLY DEFIED AND DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDER/DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.11.2022 IN W.P.NO.48595/2019 (LA-RES), VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION, 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11384-DB CCC No. 1258 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt proceeding has been initiated by complainants against respondents/accused relating to the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.48595/2019 (LA-RES). 2. Smt. Shilpa Nag C. T., I.A.S., D/o Sri. Naganna C. T., presently working as Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District, Chamarajanagara has filed the compliance affidavit dated 08.01.2024. 3. Paragraph No.4 of the said compliance affidavit indicates as under: "4. In pursuance of the above said directions, necessary steps have been taken by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District, Chamarajanagar and an endorsement dated 21.12.2023 has also been issued to the Complainant, notifying them that they are not entitled to any compensation, in accordance with applicable law as sought for by them. In this regard, it may be necessary to also mention that in addition to considering the clam of the Complainants in Annexure-K of their Writ Petition No.48595 of 2019 (LA-Res), a second representation of the Complainant dated 08.06.2023 on the same subject matter, was also considered and consequently the endorsement dated 21.12.2023 was issued. A copy - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11384-DB CCC No. 1258 of 2023 of the endorsement dated 21.12.2023, is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R1." 4. The said compliance affidavit is taken on record. 5. Sri. P. Mahesha, learned counsel appearing for complainants is present before the Court physically and taken us through the contents made in the counter to the compliance affidavit filed by learned counsel for complainants. He refers to paragraph No.3 of the said affidavit, which indicates that 'when that is the case and the State machinery itself has auctioned the properties, Accused No.1 now cannot take the contention that the properties in question is Government land and the Deputy Commissioner cannot refer to the said properties as agricultural properties and passed the impugned endorsement dated 21.12.2023 vide Annexure-R1'. 6. Apart from this, learned counsel for complainants refers to certain documents i.e., Annexures-F, G, H, J, K, L, M and N of the counter to the compliance affidavit respectively. 7. Paragraph No.11 of the said affidavit indicates that the impugned endorsement dated 21.12.2023 vide Annexure- R1 passed by accused No.1 herein is in blatant disregard to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11384-DB CCC No. 1258 of 2023 earlier Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for payment of compensation, as well as the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court, of which the contempt is alleged. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid documents, it is deemed appropriate that this matter would be decided by the concerned Competent Authority in accordance with law. 9. Keeping in view the provision of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this contempt proceeding does not survive for consideration to take action against respondents/accused. 10. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped by granting the liberty as sought for, in accordance with law. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14