- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1432 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI J.N. CHIKKAMADIAH S/O. LATE NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SRI K. PREMA W/O. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O. LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 4. SRI KRISHNA S/O. NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 6. SRI SACHIN S/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 7. SRI NINGAIAH S/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025 8. SMT PADMAMMA W/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT49 YEARS 9. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 10. SRI NAGARAJU S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS COMPLAINANTS NO.1 TO 10 ARE R/AT JAWANAGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 404 11. SRI C. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 12. SRI JAYARAM S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 13. SRI RAMACHANDRA K.K. S/O KAILASH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS COMPLAINANTS NO.11 TO 13 ARE R/AT KAGEHALLADAODDI VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 404 …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIAH MOUDGIL THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025 2. SRI DR. KUMAR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 404 3. SRI SHIVANANDAMURTHY. M THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 404 4. SRI VISHWANATH THE TAHASILDAR MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 404 …ACCUSED 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …PRO FORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT PRAYING TO TAKE OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED PERSONS IN VIOLATING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN W.P. NO.15744/2021 DATED 07.07.2025 AND TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED AUTHORITIES FOR HAVING COMMITTING CLEAR CONTEMPT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The complainants have filed the present complaint alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15744/2021 (KLR-RES). 2. The said petition was filed by one Smt. Rukkamma, wife of Sri T.L.Kempaiah impugning an order dated 31.05.2017 passed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar whereby, the writ petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment (house which was found to be constructed on the road). 3. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the said petition with the observations that there is no impediment for the authorities to remove the encroachment, if any, at the earliest within an outer limit of two months. 4. Although, it is not expressly directed that the encroachment be removed, however, the observations made by the learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025 Single Judge have been rightly interpreted as an indication for the authorities to take necessary action. 5. The accused has filed an affidavit of compliance affirming that the accused had given an immediate notice to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mandya for taking necessary action for removing the encroachment and to draw a mahazar. Subsequently, the action for removing the encroachment was initiated and a mahazar has also been withdrawn. Copy of the same is also enclosed with the compliance affidavit. Some of the photographs annexed with the affidavit indicate that certain construction that was raised has been demolished. 6. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that although part of the house raised has been demolished, the entire house has not been demolished. According to the complainants, the entire house was built on encroached land. However, only a portion of the same has been demolished. 7. This submission is contested by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the accused. He submits that part of the house that had encroached upon the road has been demolished. He further submits that the remaining part of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6994-DB CCC No. 1432 of 2025 house is on private land and therefore, the same has not been demolished. 8. It is not necessary for this Court to examine this controversy in any further detail. It is apparent that there is no wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. The complaint is accordingly closed. However, we clarify that the complainants will not be precluded from availing any other remedy, if available in law. The authorities are also not precluded from examining the contention whether the part of the house which has not been demolished is not built on private land. If it is found that the remaining house is also built on encroached land, this order will not preclude the authorities from taking further action. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2