High Court of Karnataka Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against State Authorities for Willful Disobedience of Court Order in Land Survey Matter. The court found that the accused authorities failed to comply with the order dated 24-7-2014 directing survey, phodi and durasthi work in respect of the complainant's land, constituting contempt under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 68
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The complainant, Smt. Parvathamma, a senior citizen aged 69 years, filed a contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful and deliberate failure by the accused authorities to comply with an order dated 24-7-2014 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9606 of 2014. The order directed the respondents or the competent authority to conduct survey, phodi and durasthi work in respect of land bearing Survey No.123/PAI-P4 of Vadesamudra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The accused are Munish Moudgil, Commissioner of Land Survey and Land Record Department, Bengaluru; N. Manjushree, Deputy Commissioner, Mandya; and Pramod L. Patil, Tahasildar, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya. The complainant contended that despite the order, the accused failed to take any action, forcing her to file the contempt petition on 24-9-2018. On 26-9-2022, Smt. Nayana S.L., Tahasildar, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya, filed an affidavit. The court observed that it was yet another case where authorities under the State were showing disrespect to court orders passed in 2014. The court noted that the order was clear and unambiguous, directing the survey work within nine months, but the accused did not comply. The court initiated contempt proceedings against the accused for willful disobedience of the court order.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The complainant, a senior citizen, alleged that the accused authorities failed to comply with the court order dated 24-7-2014 directing survey, phodi and durasthi work in respect of land bearing Survey No.123/PAI-P4 of Vadesamudra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya, within nine months. The court noted that the order was passed in 2014 and the contempt petition was filed in 2018, indicating willful disobedience. The court initiated contempt proceedings against the accused for showing disrespect to the court orders. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the accused authorities committed contempt of court by willfully and deliberately failing to comply with the order dated 24-7-2014 passed in Writ Petition No.9606 of 2014 directing survey, phodi and durasthi work in respect of the complainant's land.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court initiated contempt proceedings against the accused for willful disobedience of the order dated 24-7-2014 passed in Writ Petition No.9606 of 2014.

Law Points

  • Willful disobedience of court order
  • Contempt of Courts Act
  • 1971
  • Sections 11 and 12
  • Disrespect to court orders
  • Compliance with judicial directions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (KAR) (11) 20

CCC No. 2019 of 2018

2022-11-29

B. Veerappa, K. S. Hemalekha

Sri Anjan Kumar B. N. (for complainant), Sri K.S. Arun (H.C.G.P. for accused)

Smt. Parvathamma

Munish Moudgil, N. Manjushree, Pramod L. Patil

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil contempt petition for willful disobedience of court order

Remedy Sought

Initiation of contempt proceedings against the accused for willful and deliberate failure to comply with the order dated 24-7-2014 passed in Writ Petition No.9606 of 2014

Filing Reason

Non-compliance of court order directing survey, phodi and durasthi work in respect of the complainant's land

Previous Decisions

Order dated 24-7-2014 in Writ Petition No.9606 of 2014 directing survey, phodi and durasthi work within nine months

Issues

Whether the accused authorities committed contempt of court by willfully and deliberately failing to comply with the order dated 24-7-2014 passed in Writ Petition No.9606 of 2014?

Submissions/Arguments

Complainant argued that the accused failed to comply with the court order despite the lapse of more than four years, forcing her to file the contempt petition. Accused filed an affidavit through Smt. Nayana S.L., Tahasildar, on 26-9-2022, but the court noted the delay and non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

Willful disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt of court under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and authorities must comply with judicial directions within the stipulated time.

Judgment Excerpts

It is yet another case, where the Authorities under the State are showing disrespect to the Court orders passed in the year 2014. Since the accused have not complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the complainant was forced to file the present contempt petition on 24-9-2018.

Procedural History

The complainant filed Writ Petition No.9606 of 2014, which was disposed of on 24-7-2014 directing survey, phodi and durasthi work within nine months. Due to non-compliance, the complainant filed the present contempt petition on 24-9-2018. On 26-9-2022, an affidavit was filed by the Tahasildar.

Acts & Sections

  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 11, 12
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against State Authorities for Willful Disobedience of Court Order in Land Survey Matter. The court found that the accused authorities failed to comply with the order dated 24-7-2014 directing sur...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Lucknow Development Authority's Appeal in Land Acquisition Lapse Case — Possession Taken Prior to 2013 Act Precludes Deemed Lapse Under Section 24(2). Twin Conditions of Non-Possession and Non-Payment Must Be Satisfied for Laps...