IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALDRE DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY 0? AUGUST, 2088 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE 5.9.. BANNURMATE'-fl:
&
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENl}GG’PAtA_”G(f);\§h’§.i§. V’: V
§_{_)NT§MPT or comm’ CASE No.26ng_§::8gdv:Q 1 ‘
BETWEEN:
1
<3 CHANNARAYAPPA s/0 LATE (3L!M.fViAIA.H
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS M _ ~
R/AT No.21, PANTHARAPALYA = A.
MYSORE ROAD ” . V %
BANGALORE-39
c SANDEEEP Vsa:;«-rs CHANNARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT27 viaaas ~ ‘
R/AT No.21, PANTHARAP/Eu-..YA
MYSORE Rom)’ V % .
BANGALQRE-39
f % V’c.c;Hé*fAN-Ts/QASRI; QCHANNARAYAPPA
‘aA~aE Ram) ”
BANe:5Log&e3-9′
~ w_ C–MADH’U$*.*iDAN s/o SR1. ca CHANNARAYAPPA
Q ?3-GEDABOUT 22 YEARS
R[£\T..Ni3.21, PANTHARAPALYA
gmsoae ROAD
‘ _sA:~3c;ALoRE–39
CGMPLAINANTS
‘*. (B’:’h§RI: c M NAGABUSHANA, ADV.)
AND :
1 THE BANAGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-20
REP BY IT$ COMMISSIONER
SR1. SIDDAIAH, IAS; 1
2 sm. H HANNAPPA, KAS, % A
THE specw. ADDITIONAL LAf~£D”‘
ACQUISITION omcsa
am
up WEST EXTENSION
BANGALORE-20 ; g
f….*’ACCL!S.ED
(BY SR1: NAN}UN£)A§’*RE’E:fi)ff, *AQ\1f..VFO–R Sm. :{‘kR1sHNA FOR A1
sax. BASAVARA3 v;%j%sA3AR’A:;, Ame. 5:33 A2)
THIS CC’CF1_LED_ lf:§ViJNQE§i,, ssiecrloms 11 & 12 OF “THE
CONTEMPT OF coum’ ‘.£\CTf§?R”AY1NG To INITIATE CGNTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST “i_’HE AQCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE
ORDER DAT&D.25.10;2.007 PASSED IN W.P.NO. 13028/07(i.A-
BQA;,..\aD§=.j;maiVEX%uRE–A;vv~ …..
cgmg on for erders this day, 5.9..
; .VVBANNURMATH;’Jf:;._ma§e”the rouowmg:-
9B_|?_E§$
disobedience of the interim order dated 25.10.07′
i:1T%\;y;?.Veéo.13o23/07, the present contempt petition is mean. It
line’ case of the complainant that in spite of granting order of
s’tétus«-qua by this Caurt on 25.10.07, the accused have
executed sale deeds in favour of third parties on 111.0? and
also have issued possession certificates to them thereby
disobeying the order of status-quo granted by this Court.
2. After hearing the iearned counsel and _
records produced by him, it is to be made ‘order oi”.
status-quo has to be interpreted on the basis}oiét’h.e”prayferéfer’
interim relief claimed by the complainant ‘intiie “In ;
the present case, apprehending to the building
of the complainant and appreiensiion,.ef forrrietion of a road and
dismantling the building, praYer’~:’..’mis sought for
practically in the ‘intesirri aeiljuincilaine.isomer, this Court
had grantedjonly_’ meaning that during
the period ofviieitistencejof,’atatu_s-‘duo order, formation of road or
dismantling of the bulld’i*ng”v-otthe complainant shouici not take
lilotei A execution “” of sale deed or even issuance of
possession’ in our view, dom not fall within the
:7n’~~Vpilwievll’ conterinpt, as admittedly, the accused have neither
-nor implelnented the construction of road or dismantling of
building of the complainant as apprehended by hirn.
. we find there is absolutely no merit in the contempt
petition. Hence, it is liable to be rejected.
%”
3. Even otherwise, by the further order on 7.1.08, this
Court has made it ciear that any action taken by th.;e'”~,BDA
between the date of the order and date of disposelit
subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It is etso K
that on 9.4.03, the complainant made anrtap;-::cm;.:c;%intone
order, this Court clarified the eariier Interémlerder * V’ K
” It is open to R4 to he in pose%_$si’on of’ bi’ots..1§69,
170, 1321, 189, 19O,”–..Vi91’A«_Lao_ov. “19fv8:”o.nd put up
construction on A the saioeitesi. £”;§ut”~on~§-1′..’censtruction
and oevesopmen:%Lw;to plAot.§;..i$___eubject to the
outcomeof \§u%§;t~ .petit#on ” V V
4. “i’nu:s«, it even the {earned Singie Judge
who is deeIi_ng wtitnthefi.-«vrit_ petition has knowledge of the prayer
o’f”th.e ccieipisainotnt of the Interim prayer.
there is absoiuteiy no merit in the
v::onteri1p_t’%petition;, 5;The contempt petition stands rejected.
1 5 ./
Sci]-
Tudge
Sd/-3′
Iu.dgfé’
sac* *