- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1044-DB CCC No. 100379 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100379 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. AMINA W/O. RAMZANALI SAIT AGE. 82 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT 1, CLUB LINK ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. RIYAZ S/O. RAMZANALI SAIT AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/AT 1, CLUB LINK ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SIRAZ S/O. RAMZANALI SAIT AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/AT 1, CLUB LINK ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1044-DB CCC No. 100379 of 2024 AND: 1. NITESH K. PATIL AGE. MAJOR, OCC. DIRECTOR, MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MSME) DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, NO.49, KHANIJABHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK, RACECOURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. BALARAM CHOUHAN AGE. MAJOR, OCC. SLAO, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA BELAGAVI-590001. 3. BASAVARAJ NAGARAL AGE. MAJOR, OCC. TAHASILDAR, BELAGAVI, OLD CORPORATION BUILDING, RISALDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 4. SRI. SHIVASIDHA SOMESHWAR SHIVACHARYA AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. SWAMIJI, R/O. SHRI KSHETRA MUKTIMATH BHUTARAMANAHATTI-591156 DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. DR. LAXMAN S/O. SIDDAPPA JAMBAGI AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O. H. NO.2710, ASHIRWAD NURSING HOME RAIBAG-591317, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. DR. VARSHA W/O. LAXMAN JAMBAGI AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONER R/O. H. NO.2710, ASHIRWAD NURSING HOME RAIBAG-591317, DIST. BELAGAVI. …ACCUSED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1044-DB CCC No. 100379 of 2024 7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE A4; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPER, AGA FOR A7; NOTICE TO A1 TO A3, A5 & A6 ARE SERVED) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO, INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5, FOR HAVING COMMITTED CONTEMPT BY VIOLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2018 AND 06.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN R.S.A. NO.100587/2016, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1044-DB CCC No. 100379 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The complainants are a few respondents in R.S.A. No.100057/2016, a second appeal which is still pending consideration. This appeal is as against the concurrent judgments and decrees in a suit for specific performance. The Appellate Court by its interim order dated 26.03.2018 has directed the fifth to ninth respondents in such appeal not to create third party interest in the suit schedule property, an extent of 21 acres in different survey numbers of Bambarge Village, Kakti Hobli, Belagavi Taluk. These parties [the fifth to ninth respondents in the appeal] are not arrayed as respondents in the present proceedings, and as against the present respondents, the complainants assert that charges must be framed for deliberate disobedience with the Appellate Court’s direction. Sri. Chetan M. Munnolli, the learned counsel for the complainants, in support of their case emphasizes that: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1044-DB CCC No. 100379 of 2024 [a] the fifth, the sixth and the seventh respondents in the second appeal have transferred an extent of 5 acres 5 guntas in the subject property in favour of the fourth respondent in the present proceeding in violation of the interim order dated 26.03.2018 in R.S.A. No.100057/2016, [b] the appellants cannot get the details of the sale deed because the details are not even reflected in the subsequent sale deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the fifth and the sixth respondents, [c] the fourth respondent has executed sale deed dated 06.07.2022 in favour of the fifth and the sixth respondents specifically stating in the sale deed that these 5 acres is the subject matter of the dispute pending consideration in R.S.A. No.100057/2016, interim order dated 26.03.2018, [d] notwithstanding the same, the fifth and the sixth respondents have applied with the third respondent [the jurisdictional Tahsildar] on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1044-DB CCC No. 100379 of 2024 26.07.2023 stating that this extent of 5 acres is not subject of any dispute and therefore, he must delete the reference to the interim order in the RTC for this extent, [e] the third respondent who was aware of the entry of the interim order in the ROR in column No.11 thereof and despite a specific term in the sale deed, has deliberately in violation of the interim order has deleted the revenue entry resulting in the property being shown as free of encumbrance leading to diversion of this extent from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Sri. Chetan M. Munnolli submits that these circumstances indicate that the fourth respondent was aware of the interim order and so were fifth to seventh respondents and despite the same they have all colluded to delete the entries paving way for diversion of the subject property from agricultural to residential purposes. However, when queried, the learned counsel is categorical that none of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1044-DB CCC No. 100379 of 2024 the third to sixth respondents are parties to the Regular Second Appeal and there is no specific direction as against them. Significantly, the learned counsel also states that the original sellers viz., the fifth, sixth and the eight respondents [the eighth respondent is stated to be no more] are not arrayed as parties in the present proceedings. The jurisdictional Tahsildar is present, and on his behalf, Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that he has acted after obtaining the opinion of the District Government Pleader and he is not deliberate. The question: whether the complaint must be continued against the respondents, is considered in the light of admitted facts that none of them is a party to the second appeal, that there is no direction to the fourth respondent to maintain a certain status quo as regards the revenue entries and that the complainants have not sought for any further orders in the Regular Second Appeal in the light of the subsequent events. When these circumstances are holistically considered, this Court is of the considered view - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1044-DB CCC No. 100379 of 2024 that there is not even a prima facie case of deliberate disobedience of a specific direction, but this Court must also hasten to add that this opinion cannot foreclose any of the remedies that may be available to the appellants against the first to sixth respondents in the Regular Second Appeal. Hence, ORDER The complaint is closed with liberty to the complainants to prosecute all such remedies as would be available in law, including the right to challenge the deletion of the entry of the interim order in column No.11 of the ROR or the conversion order that they assert is because of the deletion of the revenue entries. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 46