High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Irasangappa Nagappa Kumbar vs Dr.K.V.Trilokachandra on 25 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Irasangappa Nagappa Kumbar vs Dr.K.V.Trilokachandra on 25 November, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
PRESENT   

THE HON'BLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF ~ R

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC_E,A,S. BOP2%i\i;NA':    V
ccc No.9o2/2010    

Between:

Sri Irasangappa Nagappa Kurfibar
Aged about 69 years    
S /0. Nagappa Kumbar  t  ._
Occ: Retd.Librar1'an '' 'A A A  
R/o.Prashanth Co1ony__  V
Pune--Banga1ore Ro_ad;_' d ' H    
Vidyanagar,      'Complainant
(13yr..sH V;i?.Kun1har, Adv.)
A_fl_€1 :  --------        
1. Dr";'K.V_.T1'iloké:ha11di"a' ' 
Cornmissioneff .   '
I-Iub1i--DhanV;;--_d d1'a_/I1i1iicipai Corporation
__Hub1i. "

V. W."  ~.    Poksireppanavar

  
_ ' ~._}iubIi3Dhjarwad Urban Development Authority
A Navanagar, Hubli.

 Sfi.vSharnbhu Dayal Meena

.. ' ' Secretary
*  Department of Urban Development
Vikas Soudha
Bangalore 560 001.  Accused

[R3 amended vide order dated 20.9.2010)



(By Sri Gurudev I.GachchinrI1ath, Adv. for Al,
M / s.A.l\liranjan Kurnar Associates, Adv. for A2,
Sri V.S.Hegde, AGA for A3)

This ccc is filed u/s 11 a 12 of the Conteznpt of
Court Act by the complainant, wherein he prays .tha_t..this

Hon'ble Court be pleased to take action a.g.ai'nst'e- 'they
respondents/accused for their willful disobed_ience'~--t.'r1ve_, 

order passed in VVP No.2142/2007 dated l.2.l’].V.2’O:l.39’vide. _

Annexure–B. V p

This CCC coming on for further c:::)’nside’1*ation

CHIEF JUSTICE passed the followingi

J.S.KHEI-IAR, C.J. (ora1_):

The complainantspetitioner this Court
by filing writ aforesaid writ

petition was fi_i~ed..’V’as’–a interest. The writ

petition, which the complainanbpetitioner,

came to be order dated 12.11.2009. The

. p_vopev_ia1tiVe’ part o’t”‘th.e..a;i”oresajd order is being reproduced

hereunder: ‘

“Respondents 2,3 and 4 are directed to
‘ find out as to whether anybody including
respondents 7 to 24 have encroachedupon
the public property. They are directed to
remove the encroachment, if any, on the
public place and the area earmarked for
road. park, open space, civic amenities, etc.,
after following the due procedure and in
accordance with law under the relevant
statutes.”

2. Alleging non–cornpliance of the aforesaid order,
the cornplainant-petitioner approached this Court by

filing the instant contempt petition. in the

counter affidavits/ statement of objections.«,.ii1ed.::VVat” ”
hands of the accused–responden’ts.A
informed, that all unauthorised V’

since been removed. Photograpvhsp V the’

aforesaid action take~n__ at .th”e” of the ‘”accused»~
respondents Nos. 1 ‘piaced on the

record of this.vcase’.«

3,” that the accused-

respondents notices to the private

respondents; depi.cting.ti_:nauthorised constructions. The

A_ private: respondents__were required to either unilaterally

‘rernove.__t’he«.tinauthorised constructions, or they were

inforrned would be removed by the accused-

‘ V ._p respondents.

‘ It is pointed out, that no further encroachment

T “remains on the land under the ownership of the private

respondents. It is therefore, the contention of the

WW

learned counsel for the accused-respondents, that the

directions issued by this Court must be deemed to.._have

been fully complied with, in as much as,
proceedings are pending with the accused–r’esponderits'{* V’

on the aspect of the matter adjtidieatped -‘–th1’Vsg

Court, in the order extracted hereinabove. l’ * . 2 V’ K

5. It is the assertion of for the
accused-respondents, a1%.iyfVl’.fii-rt:h:e1″.,yViolations come
to the notice ot”=the he may be
permitted application,
where1ip0nv,””‘th:’e by the accused\

respondents in”aceor’danc(§.with law.

56-. We asatisfiedllyvith the statement made to this

. the learned counsel for the accused-

.;At:–eordingiy, while disposing of the instant

_ conternpt petition, we grant liberty to the complainant

‘. _lpeti.tioner to move an application if he is so advised,

‘depicting any further building violations on the land

T ‘under the ownership of the private respondents in Writ

3 Petition No.2142/2007. In case, he makes any such

application. the same will be considered by the accused-

respondents in accordance with law.

7. With the aforestated observation, the insfétne

contempt petition is hereby disposed of.

Sk/~ _
Index: yes/no …. ” ”