High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivabasayya Salimath vs Sri Rachappa on 9 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shivabasayya Salimath vs Sri Rachappa on 9 June, 2008
Author: S.R.Bannurmath & R.B.Naik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 

DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JUNE ,ms    " 

PRESENT

THE HoN*BLE MR. JUSTI(3E»~»S..R.  & '

THE HONBLE MR. J;1s*191cE R.B*.   
(:00. NO. 3242007  

BETH  ._
smvabasayya Salimaihgf 2  -  
S/0. Naelkantayya Sa11n1;;LtI1;...1"     " «
Aged about65 years,    
occ:Amcu1turc,   %   
Ta1uk:Lir1g'a s'ug,_;;g~;-,_VP.i1:r5~f34 122. ' 
Dist1'ict.E2«:aic1';mV'L'-~"i'..__ >   "  ' : Complainant
(By 

1.

Sri. R$c’i1app£::,’V«_

0. Lbiahadnfvappa,
v..Agc<;_;.} about 50

v. _C)cc;' Lingasugur,
/' R;4o.Lmgasu%gm,
" . "-'1f11c:"Ass1star1t Director of

" Land_I2e{;0ifis, Survey and Settlement,
Lingasugizr, Pin–584122,
Disizriést. Raichur.

‘ Rachappa,

S/o. Mahadevappa,
Aged about 50 years,
‘ (Joe: The Tahsildar,
R/o. Lmgasugur, The Tahszldar,

Lingasugur, 13311-584122,
District. Raichur.

3. Ram Mohammad,

S/o. Imamasab,

Aged about 28 years, 1

Doc: Taluka Surveyor,

R/o. Lingasugur,

The Taluka Surveyor,

Lingasugur, Pin-584122. ._ _ é_
District. Raichur. _ .. : R’€’_;C.US\E D

(By Sri. A. G. _

This C().(j:f f§Iod;_’U/S’.’,:1.1″~&~.._1’2′ ‘of the Contempt of
Court Act cotltciriptprocccdings against
the accused for V__t1i1éforder dated 12.06.2007
passed in 15’M»5/{sects (KLR/RR/SUR).

‘I’hi*s’oo ‘”§i:(,*«r.”:I”I:.i:t1g «mo “for order, this day,
the following:

% ‘ in E R

3 _; ‘I’his petition has been filed allegltlg

the order passed by the Iearnol Single

J”ucigeT* Court in W.P.No.15746/2006

V -V dated 12.04.2007. The learned Single, by

” K oim;§iig11<-3d order while disposing 011' the writ petition

the rcspondeI1ts~authority to conduct the survey

fix the boundaries to the petitioncr's land in

f/'"

accordance with law, Within a mriod of two montthsfrom

the date of passing of the order. Alleging

direction issued by the learned Judge’ 5

the present contempt petition is T A. 2

2. After issuance ”

authorities appearetl’ Z thdditional
Government _ statement of
objections, 2 the direction
issued by survey has been
conducted . fixed after notifying
the peesence of the complainant.

In support % has produced documents as at

showing the measurement and

isms well as the survey conducted on

06; perusal of the said documents it is seen

foomplainant who was present at the time of

A survey has refused to siggx the same, as it is

V. not, as he wanted. It is thereafter, on 22.12.2007 the

2*”

present contempt is filed alleging violation of _ .t11::’arder

passed by this court.

3. If the survey conducteqaxld »

by the rcspondezfis-authorities 153 ngit-311

law or to the liking ef A¥appr03pri%ate: %’

remedy available to i$ tc:.c;h§;vJ;i1cnge the
same separately

4. In ‘of onder passed
by the figjigcw, above, WC do not
think itis the present contempt
the contempt petition filed
by the to be dismissed.

A contempt petition filed by the

cempxaxnszmigaismissed.

Sd/-~
Judge

Sd/-v
Judge