Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 54027 (KAR)

SMT. BIBIJAN MAGADI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CCC/100433/2025 · 2026-01-20

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:557-DB CCC No. 100433 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH 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. 100433 OF 2025 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BIBIJAN MAGADI, W/O. LATE SRI. SUBHANASAB MAGADI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. NEAR BUS STOP, MELLEGATTI VILLEGE, KUNIMELLIHALLI POST, TALUK SAVANUR, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 202. 2. MRS. SHABINA BANU HARAKUNI W/O. SRI. SHARIP SAB, D/O. LATE SRI. SUBHANASAB MAGADI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT. BELAVALAKOPPA, HERIBENDIGERI POST, SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 205. 3. MRS. RESHMA NADAF W/O. KHALANDAR NADAF, D/O. LATE SRI. SUBHANASAB MAGADI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT. BADEMIYA PLOT, MORAB POST, NAVLGUND TALUK, DIST: DHARWAD-581 112. 4. MR. HASANASAB MAGADI S/O. LATE SRI. SUBHANASAB MAGADI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 5. MR. MARDANSHA MAGADI, S/O. LATE SRI. SUBHANASAB MAGADI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, COMPLAINANT NOS.1, 4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NEAR BUS STOP, MELLEGATTI VILLEGE, KUNIMELLIHALLI POST, TALUK SAVANUR, HAVERI DISTRICT- 581 202. COMPLAINANT NO.1 TO 3 AND 5 ARE Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:557-DB CCC No. 100433 of 2025 REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER COMPLAINANT NO.4 MR. HASANASAB MAGADI. … COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE IS APPEARED THROUGH V.C.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, UNDER REVENUE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, 3RD GATE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. PROFORMA RESPONDENT NO.1 2. MR. VIJAYAMAHANTESH B. DANAMMANAVAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (DC), DC OFFICE, DEVAGIRI, HAVERI ROAD, TQ. & DIST: HAVERI – 581 110. 3. MR. SHUBHAM SHUKLA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AC), TAHASLIDAR OFFICE, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 118. 4. MR. RAVIKUMAR KORAVAR, TAHASLIDAR, TAHASLIDAR OFFICE, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 118. 5. MR. GURURAJ DAMBAL, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, MELLEGATTI VILLEGE LIMIT, TAHASLIDAR OFFICE, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 118. … ACCUSED (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR A2 TO A5; SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR PROFORMA R-1) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY THE ALL ACCUSED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDERS PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.102862/2025 (KLR-RR/SR) DATED 19.09.2025 PRODUCED HEREIN AT ANNEXURE A AND TO PROSECUTE AND PUNISH THE ALL ACCUSED, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:557-DB CCC No. 100433 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.102862 of 2025, has passed the following order: “ii. A mandamus is issued directing respondents to consider the representations at Annexures-A1 to A3 and pass necessary orders within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. Learned AGA, upon instructions, submits that by order dated 04.11.2025, the request of the complainants has been considered and rejected. A copy of the order is produced before the Court. 4. The jurisdictional Tahsildar is present before the Court and is identified by the learned AGA. 5. Learned AGA further submits that a copy of the order has been communicated to the complainants and also undertakes to provide one more copy of the same to the complainants. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:557-DB CCC No. 100433 of 2025 6. In the light of the order dated 04.11.2025, nothing survives for consideration in the present contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the complainants to challenge the said order in accordance with law, if they are so advised. 7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE VNP / CT-CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10