Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1166

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs And Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
P. Ravi Kumar And Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 688 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997
With
Chamundi Hotel Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Vandita Sharma And Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 578 of 2022 In Civil Appeal No. 3305 of 1997
With
M.L. Varchusvin S.S. Raje Urs And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Vandita Sharma And Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 716 OF 2023 In Civil Appeal No. 3307 of 1997 With Interlocutory Application No. 39734 of 2023
With
Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Rajneesh Goel And Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 555 of 2024 In Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997
With
Indrakshi Devi – Petitioner
Versus
Rajneesh Goel And Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 556 OF 2024 In Civil Appeal No. 3309 of 1997
With
Kamakshi Devi Avaru – Petitioner
Versus
Rajneesh Goel And Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 585 OF 2024 In Civil Appeal No. 3306 of 1997
Decided On : 10-12-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the ppellant(s) : Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv. For M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, AOR Ms. Nayanatara Bg, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR Mrs. Vandana Anand, Adv. Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Mr. Prashant , AOR Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv. Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv. Mr. Bharathi Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. Manu Nair, Adv. Mr. Neelabh Shreesh, Adv. Mr. Aryan Roy, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty, AG/Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Adithya Bhat, Adv. Ms. Adoorya Bomakka Harish, Adv. Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Kushal Dube, Adv. Mr. Tathagata Dutta, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv. Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv. Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Mr. Tarun, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchi Arya, Adv. Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR Mr. Arimardhan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mirinalini Ramesh, Adv.

The court established that wilful disobedience of clear court orders constitutes contempt, requiring compliance within a specified timeframe.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Wilful disobedience - Allegations of contempt against State authorities for failing to issue TDR as per orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022, and 19.03.2024 - Court found clear evidence of wilful disobedience and intentional delay in compliance with orders - Respondents directed to issue TDR within six weeks. (Paras 25 and 26)

(B) Legal principles - Wilful disobedience requires intentional and conscious disregard of court orders - Contempt proceedings not maintainable for casual or accidental non-compliance. (Paras 10 and 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners alleged that the State failed to comply with court orders regarding TDR issuance for land acquired for road widening, despite clear directives and subsequent attempts by the State to modify the orders.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the State had intentionally delayed compliance with its orders and had failed to issue TDR as required.

Issues: Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the court orders regarding TDR issuance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents' actions constituted wilful disobedience of clear court orders, necessitating compliance within a specified timeframe.

Result: Contempt petitions allowed; respondents directed to issue TDR as per court orders.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The State authorities are required to issue TDR as per the TDR Rules and the orders passed by the Court (!) (!) . - The State authorities failed to comply with the clear and explicit orders of the Court, leading to findings of willful disobedience (!) (!) . - The issuance of TDR must be according to the market value as prescribed under the Karnataka Stamp Act, and any deviation is not permissible (!) (!) .

What are the rights of the State authorities concerning the issuance of TDR as per the orders passed by the Court?

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Alleging wilful disobedience of the Orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court, these contempt petitions have been filed for punishing the respondents for their alleged contumacious act.

1.1 For purposes of convenience the contempt petitions which have been filed with details appended thereto are tabulated herein below:

SERIAL NO.	CONTEMPT PETITION No.	COMPLAINANT/S	RESPONDENT/S	ORDER ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FILED
1	CP. No. 688 of 2021 in C.A. NO. 3309 -3310/1997	Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr.	Shri P. Ravi Kumar and Ors.	Order dt. 21.11.2014 passed in I.A. No. 13 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
2	CP. No. 578/2022 in C.A. No. 3305 of 1997	Chamundi Hotel Private Limited	Smt. Vandita Sharma and Ors.	i. Order dt. 21.11.2014 passed in I.A. No. 13 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. iii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in CP No. 578 of 2022.
3	CP. No. 716 of 2023 in C.A. No. 3307 of 1997	M.L Varchusvin S.S. Raje Urs.	Smt Vandita Sharma and Ors.	i. Order dt. 21.11.2014 passed in I.A. No. 13 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
4	CP. No. 555 of 2024 in C.A. No. 3310 of 1997 and C.P. 688 of 2021	Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and Anr.	Dr. Rajneesh Goel and Ors.	i.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii. Order dt. 19.03.2024 in CP No. 578 of 2022.
5	CP. No. 556 of 2024 in C.A. No. 3309 of 1997	Smt. Indrakshi Devi	Rajneesh Goel and Ors	i.Order dt. 21.11.2014 passed in I.A. No. 13 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii. Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.
6	C.P No. 585 of 2024 in C.A. No. 3306 of 1997	Kamakshi Devi Avaru	Rajneesh Goel and ors.	i.Order dt. 21.11.2014 passed in I.A. No. 13 of 2011 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997. ii.Order dt. 17.05.2022 in I.A. No. 98276 of 2021 in C.A. No. 3303 of 1997.

The aforestated analogous petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this Common Order as they involve facts in common.

1.2 The petitioners in the aforestated contempt petitions have contended that the order dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022, including the order dated 19.03.2024 is clear and explicit whereunder the respondent authorities have been directed by this Court to issue TDR as per TDR Rules in favour of the respective land owners whose land has been acquired for widening of Bellary and Jayamahal Roads and yet respondents have failed to do so and thereby they have wilfully disobeyed the directions and orders passed by this Court. It is also contended that though Bengaluru Development Authority (for short BDA) and Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (for short BBMP) on the one hand were taking steps to issue TDR by calling for information from the petitioners, on the other hand Government of Karnataka passed an Order on 23.02.2021 expressing its difficulty to implement the orders of this Court on the ground of financial hardship being caused to exchequer which itself is clear wilful disobedience. It is also contended that State has taken the benefit flowing from the order dated 21.11.2014 and utilized the land owned by petitioners to widen the roads and has issued the Government Order dated 08.12.2022 after dismissal of the IA for modification on 17.05.2022, which amounts to over reaching the orders of this Court. It is also contended that the positive direction issued by this Court to the respondents to issue TDR as per TDR rules in favour of complainants had not been complied which not only undermine the dignity of this Court but also the authority of this Court. It is further contended that market value determined for the subject land for issuing TDR by no stre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 1166

The court established that wilful disobedience of clear court orders constitutes contempt, requiring compliance within a specified timeframe.

What are the rights of the State authorities concerning the issuance of TDR as per the orders passed by the Court?

Cases Referred (5)

Related Judgments

Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs VS P. Ravi Kumar - 2024 Supreme(SC) 1166

Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs VS S. V. Ranganath - 2025 Supreme(SC) 899

P. Ramanjineya S/O Late Pillappa vs State Of Karnataka Urban Development Department - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 2561

Sri. Aravind Kumar IAS vs S.Ram Reddy - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 6392

Pinjari Kareem Sabu VS J. Sivasankar Naik - 2022 Supreme(AP) 87

Nawab Mohd Yousufuddin Khan vs Sri.Koppula Venkat Reddy - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12166

Mekala Krishnaveni @ Sumangali vs Mr. B.M. Santosh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 5137

R. Rajendran VS P. Ponniah, District Collector, Kanchipuram - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2554

Jayamma VS State of Karnataka - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 832

State of West Bengal vs Chandi Charan Singha Roy - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 880