- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100288 OF 2024 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100370 OF 2024 IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100288 OF 2024: BETWEEN: 1. JANADRI SURESH @ SURESHBABU, S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, BUS STAND ROAD, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 2. SMT. GOURAMMA W/O. NAGARAJ, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JAYANAGAR, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 3. JANADRI PRABHAKAR S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 4. JANADRI GOPALKRISHNA S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 5. JANADRI RAMESHBABU S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 6. SMT. SHEELA W/O. K.J. PRASAD, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAYANAGAR, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 7. JANADRI THIMMAPPA S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. - COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI R. VEERUPAKSHAMURTHY, THE COMMISSIONER, THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. - ACCUSED (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR VIOLATING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.101829/2021 DATED 04.07.2024 (LB-RES) VIDE “ANNEXURE-A” & ETC. IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 100370 OF 2024: BETWEEN: THE CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 1. JANADRI SURESH @ SURESHBABU, S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, BUS STAND ROAD, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 2. SMT. GOURAMMA W/O. NAGARAJ, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JAYANAGAR, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 3. JANADRI PRABHAKAR S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, BUS STAND ROAD, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 4. JANADRI GOPALKRISHNA S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, BUS STAND ROAD, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 5. JANADRI RAMESHBABU S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, BUS STAND ROAD, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 6. SMT. SHEELA W/O. K.J. PRASAD, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAYANAGAR, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 7. JANADRI THIMMAPPA S/O. TULUSAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O. NEELAKANTESHWARA CIRCLE, BUS STAND ROAD, GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R7) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.101829/2021 & ETC. THE CONTEMPT PETITION AND THE WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The question that arise in these proceedings is whether this Court must interfere with the order dated 04.07.2024 in W.P. No. 101829/2021 or whether the complaint of disobedience must be continued to frame charges against the respondents against the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Gangavati, Koppal District. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 2. The writ Court has allowed the writ petition in W.P. No. 101829/2021 by the complainants directing the City Municipal Council, Gangavati [the Commissioner] to generate the revenue records for the sites claimed by the complainants under the gift deed dated 27.01.2010 which is executed by their father who has admittedly developed residential layout in No. 154/1-7 of Gangavati Town, Raichur District. The writ Court has also called upon the Commissioner to deposit a cost of Rs.20,000/- with the Advocates’ Clerks Association, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The Direction to generate revenue records and pay costs is time bound. The writ Court’s directions as aforesaid are in the light of the following undisputed facts. 3. The complainants’ father has formed a residential layout in the said survey number comprising certain sites as approved in the year 1982, and he has transferred six sites out of these sites and the Commissioner has also given the benefit of revenue entries for these sites. According to the complainants, they are denied the benefit of the revenue entries for the other sites because they have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 pursued a complaint with the Lokayukta against the office of the Commissioner and there are consequential proceedings. The complainants allege Commissioner’s office has taken a vindictive approach in refusing the revenue entries. The Commissioner, on the contrary, brings on record that the approval granted in 1982 is not modified and this would be of significance because if the approval in the year 1982 is to prevail, a park must be maintained, but the complainants are showing such area as site Nos 65 to 72. It is contended that unless the Planning Authority is heard and the controversy on whether there is such modification is resolved, the complainants cannot be given the benefit of revenue entries. In rejoinder, the complainants contend that the area shown as park in the year 1982 is now site Nos. 65 to 72 in terms of the modification. 4. At the outset, this Court must observe that this controversy about the modification of the plan granted in 1982 without park being earmarked has not been considered by the writ Court, and this Court is of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 considered view that for complete adjudication, the Planning Authority must first state whether there is modification which enables development without a park and until this is so resolved there cannot be a direction for issuance of revenue entries for the sites that could be part of the park if the 1982 approval prevails. This Court’s observation must be in the context of the two layout Plans which are as under: Note: The Park is seen in the Second Sketch This Court must therefore intervene to modify the writ Court’s order insofar as there is a direction for revenue - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 entries that for site Nos. 65 to 72providing for expedited decision this controversy which relates to these sites. 5. However, this controversy cannot be a reason to refuse revenue entries for the other sites and the affidavit that is filed by the Commissioner today in the open Court is considered in the light of the afore. It emerges from this affidavit that excluding these sites No. 65 to 72 the revenue entries would be issued for the remaining sites notwithstanding the changes in the dimension of these other sites or their location. In the light of the afore, the following:- ORDER The Writ Appeal is allowed in part modifying the writ Court’s order dated 04.07.2024 in W.P. No. 101829/2021 in the following terms. [a] the Commissioner shall issue revenue entries for the sites [excluding site Nos. Nos.65 to 72] in the aforesaid survey numbers in favour of the petitioners as per the terms of the gift - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 deed dated 27.01.2010, within 45 days from today subject to the petitioners’ file application with a certified copy of this order and remit requisite fees. [b] The revenue entries for these sites shall be given as per the aforesaid gift deed in terms of the dimensions and location as is mentioned in the gift deed. [c] The petitioners are reserved with liberty to apply with the Town Planning Authority, Koppal, for clarification on whether the area demarcated as sites No. 65 to 72 by them/ in the gift deed/ modified plan relied upon by them and marked parked in the approval dated 20.11.1982 must be maintained as a park. [d] The petitioners are at liberty to make such representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the Planning Authority is called upon to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3351-DB CCC No. 100288 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100370 of 2024 consider such representation in the light of all the circumstances and communicate the decision at the earliest. [e] The complaint stands closed with liberty to revive if there is any default in complying with the directions for revenue entries for the other sites within the timeframe now allowed. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17