- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519222026 NC: 2026:KHC:50024-DB CCC No. 941 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 941 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A. RAMASANJEEVAIAH S/O LATE. ARCHAK ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC ARCHAK, R/O NO.86, CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAJALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU-562157 2. SMT.ANANTHAMMA D/O LATE ARCHAKA ANNAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU-562157. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY.C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519222026 NC: 2026:KHC:50024-DB CCC No. 941 of 2026 2. BASAVARAJ THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-I, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560004. 3. SRI.P.S. KANTHARAJU, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, REVENUE BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 4. SYED KALEEMULLA THE TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN-560064. 5. SRI.JITHENDRA VEERAVANI, S/O MOHAN VEERAVANI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT. HOUSE NO.341, EMBASSY WOODS, NO.6A, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. 6. SMT.JAYAMMA D/O LATE PATEL NANJAPPA, W/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE, BENGALURU TALUK, BENGALURU-562124. 7. SMT.SAROJAMMA D/O LATE PATEL NANJAPPA, W/O SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT GANDHINAGAR, YELAHANKA TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562124. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519222026 NC: 2026:KHC:50024-DB CCC No. 941 of 2026 8. SREEDHARA SETTY S/O HANUMANTHAPPA SETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, KAUSAL NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560030 …ACCUSED (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT WHEREIN PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO SECURE THE ACCUSED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT FOR HAVING COMMITTED A DELIBERATE A WILFUL VIOLATION SHOWING DISRESPECT DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.18333/2016 (KLR-RES) DATED 17.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FURTHER DIRECT THE ACCUSED TO COMPLY THE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN THE ABOVE SAID WRIT PETITION FORTH WITH. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519222026 NC: 2026:KHC:50024-DB CCC No. 941 of 2026 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Learned AGA has appeared for proforma respondent No.1. 2. This petition is filed alleging deliberate and willful violation of the Order dated 17.03.2021 passed in W.P.No. 18333/2016. 3. Learned counsel for the complainants states that the following part of the order is the operative part. "8. It is nobody's case that the proceedings of the land tribunal are concocted or is a fabricated document. If that be the admitted factual position, then the order under challenge is one wholly without jurisdiction. In the event the revenue authorities are aggrieved or not convinced with the right/title of the petitioner over the lands in question, the only option would have been to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or in the alternative, lay a challenge to the order/observation of the land tribunal produced as Annexure-B. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519222026 NC: 2026:KHC:50024-DB CCC No. 941 of 2026 9. In that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned is one without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and is accordingly, quashed." 4. It is the admitted case of the complainant that pursuant to the order, an inquiry before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is being done. 5. Even otherwise, we find that this contempt petition is woefully barred by limitation for which, an explanation is sought to be given in the affidavit filed along with IA No. 1 of 2026. The reason cited in the affidavit would not amount to sufficient cause for explaining the delay. Even otherwise in the judgment of S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah1, has been observed that for continuous wrong/breach/offence to be accepted as a ground for seeking exemption in an application for contempt, the petitioner in the Court not only has to comprehend what the phrase actually means but would 1 (2024) 20 SCC 188 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519222026 NC: 2026:KHC:50024-DB CCC No. 941 of 2026 also be required to show from his pleadings, the ground resting whereon, he seeks exemption from limitation. Should the party fail to satisfy the Court, the petition is liable to outright rejection. This contempt petition is accordingly, consigned. Accordingly, IA No.1 of 2026 is rejected. SD/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE SD/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6