Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53762 (KAR)

SANGAMESH S/O SIDAGOUDA GHULAPPANAVAR v. SMT.DIVYA PRABHU

CCC/100392/2025 · 2026-01-12

B Muralidhara Pai, M I Arun

Contempt Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:252-DB CCC No. 100392 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100392 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SANGAMESH S/O SIDAGOUDA GHULAPPANAVAR, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTICE, R/O. PLOT NO.13, SNEHAL GARDEN, PAVAN PARK, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580 008. … COMPLAINANT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNASWAMY BASAYYA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KAVERI M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DIVYA PRABHU, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY AGA DHARWAD. … ACCUSED (BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR ACCUSED NO.1; SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR PROFORMA A-2) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2025 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P. NO.105496/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.17 11:13:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:252-DB CCC No. 100392 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) In Writ Petition No.105496/2025, this Court has passed the following order : “i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued. The endorsement dated 27.02.2025 issued by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-E is set aside. iii. The Deputy Commissioner is consequently directed to issue a formal endorsement as indicated supra in terms of Clause (1) of Subsection (2) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 2. On the ground that the accused have not passed the necessary orders pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the present contempt petition is filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:252-DB CCC No. 100392 of 2025 3. One Smt. Divya Prabhu, IAS, who was then working as the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District has filed an affidavit dated 01.12.2025 stating as under : “I state that, as per the order of this Hon’ble Court, the endorsement has been issued to the petitioner on 25.11.2025, as petitioner has to approach the Town and Country Planning Authority. The copy of the endorsement dated 25.11.2025.” 4. An endorsement dated 25.11.2025 is issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, which reads as under: “ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæüð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀİè£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ (wzÀÄÝ¥Àr) C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 2023 gÀ PÀ®A 95(2)(i) gÀ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹zÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgï ¥Áè£ï £À°è §gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÀȶAiÉÄÃvÀgÀ GzÉÝñÀUÀ½UÁV ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÉUÉ qÉ¥ÀÇån PÀ«ÄµÀ£Àgï C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ CUÀvÀå EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÀħâ½î- zsÁgÀªÁqÀ £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀiÁUÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼ÀÀÄzÁVzÉ JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ.” 5. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri Gangadhar J.M. submits that the aforementioned endorsement amounts to granting necessary permission to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:252-DB CCC No. 100392 of 2025 the petitioner regarding conversion of his land for the residential purposes and no further orders are required. 6. Recording the submission of learned Additional Advocate General, the contempt petition is hereby disposed of, reserving liberty to the complainant to sue any officer of the State, if they do not consider the endorsement of sufficient to treat the land of the petitioner can be put to use for residential purposes. 7. It is further observed that in the light of the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, all the State authorities are bound to process any request made by the petitioner for plan sanction and other purposes treating the land as converted for residential purposes. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE CKK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15