IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE mm DAY OF' JANUARY,' 3009
PRESENT
THE I-iON"BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANg}!Ji.;A~CiA*1EI..L§I_R ~ ..
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE sREEN:%gA3E«.
c.<::.c. N9. 61:2i eF 20:3? 3
Between:
1. 1 ' V V
Kyvicicw 6:'. 'Sk1€:tty,
agsd about y.¢:;_a§s»~.*'
2. ., Dr. 'Shctxy,
. S,-*9 latti 'B.§_.__'Sh$tty,
5»Ageii. about 63 years
- ' »7§'§1¢' Cemplaizmnts No. 1 and 2
A }XI'e"Ljrc$idh1g at "Vathsalya",
Kaciziéi Rama Rae Compound,
.. Opp: Balia} Garage,
hsiangalcm 575 062. [}.K.
«' Jagaveevan Shetty,
S/0 I:3.B. Shatty,
Hindu, aged 59 yfiazrs,
Rfat N{).4---123,
"Viglfishwara" Behind: Indravaili
High $511001, Kunjibcttu Post,
Udupi 576 102.
4. Dr. Shubhalatha Shatty,
D/0 iate BB. Sh;-::tty,
W/0 Dr. Santosh Kumar S}:_11,_._I_.£tS» Act prayixag to initiate contempt
" " pr€:ncac'diI1g:3~_ against thc resmrzdents for having
' _{i€ii¥:)eram1y_ disobeying the order dated 28.08.2006 passed
;x;..Tw;%§=i%f;~.z¢'. 32861/.2002 {KLR).
L X 'Tf1i$__"C..<§:;C3. earning on far Orders, this day, MANJULA
CHEL¢L1'_§R. J. made the foliowingr
ORDER
Heard. This cantempt proceedings are iaunchcd,
V _u_ f+::omp}ai:1ing that the ac<:u$€f
Petition No.37861/2002 (KLR) ciated 28.a.%;2cio{a.’ 77.] .
2. Brief facts leading to finngjcf %a:¢T;T;s %
under:
It is the <":ompia:'inant's i958 Sy;
N0.361, 5, 6, 8 and g of Nittc
Village 91' Karkaja lease basis in
faVOLII'.V1:.(er,V_ to gew cashew crops under
Rule 2 Sauth Kanara Districzt lease
of Lsancis fox; Cifillfivafion Rules 1957. The said
‘V fa§i*..§ period of 30 years subject 1:0 condition that
ganmd, one fif::.h of the lands should be
broi1–ght. i.1::éiier cashew cultivation within a year and the
H ” ‘A . §I3€j.1ff3 shcuid he brought under cashaw cultivation
the next 5 yaars and at least: them should be 50
T ” ‘7C$.shcw trees ii} {me acre. (311 16.3. 1989 spot iI1Sp€(:tiOI1 of
A. the Tahsildar of Karkala, it was found that the entire
Eands ware not braught ‘£1I”1d€I’ cashew ctiiiivation and a
repnrt was also sent to the Deputy f!.§r
fuzther action. Thereafter, after notifying __t1;::: ctjnéemed
agreement heider, the Tahsildagf
impugxed ordar (:ance3ling €I 1e 7’t11c5;’:
1958.
3. Agg:ri1=.:ve.d by the and
others approar3fis:§i:VI’*2he:=’§{a:1?§:éLta£§:é Tribunal (KAT)
in 24_1f92. The KAT allcweé both
the appeéaés- by the impugned orders pa$$(:”:(;i
by “B.epu.i;y’= Qgntimxi-ssioner cancelling the agztemfint of
held that the appeliants are at liberty
iio_ ::1:1ie Land at the rate fixed under the
V . agéém€:fi£.’~ ‘How:-:ver nething saems ts) have been made by
H K Re\.?é:I:riu<:t Authorities subsequent to the esrdcr 6f the
-‘ dated 8.3.1993. The complainaiat anti others
éfipreached this Celirt in W. P. N0.37861/2002. After
hearing learned Cmansci for both the parties. this Court
passii-..d the foiiewing arficr:
‘The writ petition ie alloweé. The Tahsilda3f,_
Karkaimsecond respondent is directed”. .4
consider the representation of the”””first..__
petitioner as per Annexure-E to Writ” ”
petitien dated 28.8.2002 and dispmsef{:2f»t1’1e<~A
same within six m0nths'Jfi;or1:g_ti'?;e_;date_ ef A
receipt of this order er pmfitzcfiexa of eeftifie-fie : VT A
copy, whichever is earlier." W '~ = '
4. The order of this is deted: sand £13
per the direction “£’SZfi1Ii”1iIiVV6 fimnths from
the date of receipt ef order the flue T
respeiidexitgiififie ‘0f”:t11e representaiien dated.
28.2.§€}G’2.. A n
5,.» .%Keeerdi1’1gte_j;b.e complainant, nething seems to have
‘ Lbeen » December, 2087. He approached thie
A
eentempt proceedings seeking acfien against
accused Sri. Muraiidher, who was the
” ATe;i1ei1dar, Taluk Office, Karkale at the time of filing of
1:he eentempt preceedings.
Mmaiidhar took charge as Tahsiidar %
Tham1irbavikatti on 8.8.2007′. 1:’. tztxe pf
complainant were to be that, wi1′::Z:1in’_ si:’& ifhe
date of receiyt cf the the érdfir
WP. No.3786i/2002 Jtiyszre on the
part of the ‘i’ahsi1da3’ –./we dimction, he
might. to hav¢.Vn”-sgxdc accused as he
was the .
9. ‘F.1_}e1j1. second aspect of flilfi matter
whethefthé xizhe authorised person to grant
}e3.$§§éi’Eznr f”1xi’ng t’.h€: Vfiaricxe. WE have perused the records
us by the present accused i.e. Mr.
x%§}{o states that after he took charge of the
V –V oifiétz Taluk ofiice, Karkala, Whatever he ccmid do,
V’ V’ »1’i€i;i”‘.=:T;1SVIZVif0¥1(‘3. it is: nnticed frem the rmurd that by the time
‘ céme: to be posted ‘(:0 Karkala there was spat iIC1$p€C’d{3I1
‘4 which d:i$C10$es the other unauthnrised occupants
occixpying the Lands in qtzcstiang who had aiready sought
for mgularisation 0f the lands hc.I~°:1–. Xjafix»
appiicafions were pending A I
Committee. Meanwhile 3,0
the Deputy Commissioner, i§ tfié ‘¢’=h;3{tf.v1.j,1al:Vf¢’:1ut11c:>rit3«’ to
lease: the zands £o:%%%.%Lg~;ashfcx»:k%} bringing to the
notice ef the facts that initially
before thtj éfiiiimissiener concerned
i.e., Va party. whue filing Writ
petitgfijn Commissions!” concerned,
the bf whose limits Nitte Village is
sittgiated wasflalso made as a party. However, there was a
.A §:iir§<:f.ig'31*3.A __1"3}(": QM respondent in the writ petition
then) to consider the representation
of {hue who was not campetent autharity to
V' V' ., ésiasidér the repnascntatinn, either to gent, lease or
the Land ta tha tmauthorised ca-ccupants. Under
2 Land Grant Ruies, it is the {Deputy Commi$sioncr
alone who could exercise ihfi power under the respective
Rules and the Tahsikiar was not an authmfity to pass any
of the erciers Concerned. Even if he passes
it would be an order men est; in 1;§1e eye–'0i' =1efw.""w..HQweiIer.
the materials brought an Ieceijd f3}§flfi* .
preeent accused tried %am if:
August, 200? by bri;_:g’ng Deputy
Commissiener, the s§1<::h erélers could
not be made ef the
his eeunter affidavit and
the evV§cici;ee';*'i:e' why it was not possible for
him to» take p'Qsit_i\re–'aefion beeauee of men existence 9:"
* ."%11§17hGIfitrV ef' *-**-Wer vested in him to pass such erder.
Ijfider uitimately the Ceurt has te
ee:;éider.ii?§§e3:l1er the present accused has disebeyed the
"-..direetie;§~ of the Gouzt willfully in ereier to attract contempt
4./ffi:.:,*:f{:,ie§i;”;.*3 against him. The fact is, the Tahsildar against
__’e5hem such order was passed who was ineharge of
Karkala Taluk Office till 7.8.2200′? is net made 3. and
the party before us fias expiained why it was not possible
fer him tee pass such erciers,
30. The complainant While t3.k.”iI}g.8 _
petition ought to have been mere
should have exercised Eliligefsee.’ {hie beefi
person to know whether the the writ
petitien, i.e., The to pass any
orders on complainant as
directed wt’-3 Wrong on the part
of ” that it was for the
that he is not the competent
authqrigy; was Wefl aware that before the
V’ _ A’ Tahsii€iér””Was not even £1 party and the orders 01?
iihew’ Qgnmmiesiener was set aside. It was the
Qeputy%~ Genimissiolaer who could pass orders as directed
t}i€’:.R’P1’ibuna1 by fixing the rate. From Armexure E
28.2.2032, flew the representatiun of the
..e<3H}p1aiI1ant and ethers we nofice that the very request of
the complainant and others was to eempiy with the orders
passeé by the KAT by executing necessary deed of
eenveyanee in favetir ef the eempiainaxzt and others.
13
Wham the Tahsiidar was neat even a party hcfgfe’
is bcyend azly ‘bv0dy’s imagination to b
who is not a competent a1j%;1’1t>rity3 to ‘ -Césnsiiiftr $21916 ‘
representation dated 2062., V flies?)
circumstances we 33: of them is no
dififibfidififlfifi, much of the {)1″d6I’S
sf tha Cmlxt ‘giaigcd ; ‘Jaccuscd herein.
Accordhlgly-{E1};
Sd/-3
Judge
Sd/-V
Iudge
Vb/~