AJJAYYA SHIVAPUTRAYYA GUDDADAMATH v. SRI SRINIVASGOUDA
CCC/100315/2024 · 2025-08-19
S Sunil Dutt Yadav, Vijaykumar A Patil
Contempt Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50539 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50539 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10451-DB CCC No. 100315 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100315 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
AJJAYYA SHIVAPUTRAYYA GUDDADAMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KELAGERI, TQ & DIST. DHARWAD-580004.
&COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. SRINIVASGOUDA, THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, D. C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001.
2.
THE DIRECTOR SHRI SHIVAKUMAR KHENY, NANDI HIGHWAY DEVELOPERS LTD,
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10451-DB CCC No. 100315 of 2024
NO.1, MID FORD HOUSE OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-1. &ACCUSED
3.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY A.G. OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
&PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. NITIN PRASAD AND SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJJI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CONTEMPT PETITION AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT FOR HAVING DISOBEY THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 IN WP NO.106937/2023 PASSED BY THE THIS HON9BLE COURT AT VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10451-DB CCC No. 100315 of 2024
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.106937/2023. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as under: <4. Therefore, it is expedient to dispose off the petition, directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 29.08.2020 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-E and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.=
2. Respondents entered appearance and filed affidavit of one Sri Ismail Saheb Shirhatti, Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highway, Dharwad. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads as under: <7. I respectfully submit that, after receipt of the same the I have consider the order passed by this Hon9ble Court in MFA No.10364/2017 and Writ Appeal No.6115- 17/2002 passed an order thereby calculated the amount to the remitted in favour of complainant/claimant. Along with the order dated 12.08.2025 a calculation memo was also prepared their by determined remaining compensation payable to the complainant herein Copy of
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10451-DB CCC No. 100315 of 2024
the order dated 12.08.2025 is herewith produced along with this affidavit as Document No.1.
8. I humbly submit that, as per direction of this Hon9ble Court, I have complied the order and there is a delay in considering the direction of this Hon9ble Court within a stipulated time. I beg your lordship pardon for the said delay and there is no intention to disobey the
order of this Hon9ble Court and the delay caused is not intentionally or wilfully. But it is only for administrative reasons and to verify the records.=
3. In view of the aforesaid affidavit and the order dated 12.08.2025, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge has been complied with. In view of the same, contempt proceedings are dropped. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedies available under law including challenging the decision of the authority, if so advised.
Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN