The court underscored the necessity of compliance with its orders, establishing that willful disobedience warrants contempt findings and penalties, and altering compliance orders post-finding is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. The above contempt petitions had been filed for alleged wilful disobedience of the orders dated 21.11.2014; 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024. By judgment dated 10.12.2024, this Court after taking note of the purported compliance affidavits dated 09.7.2024, whereunder the DRC’s/TDR’s for the subject land had been resolved to be issued by adopting the value as determined under the BPAT Act had rejected the same and had issued clear directions to re-issue the DRC’s/TDR’s, and for having dragged it’s feet for long number of years i.e., more than 10 years, the contemnors were held guilty of wilful non-compliance and mulcted the contemnors with costs, by assigning elaborate reasons. Yet, undaunted, the contemnors seem to be further dragging their feet by manoeuvres and same is deprecated. We say so, for the simple reason that contemnors under the umbrella of the legislation orders of the Court which ought to be implemented in letter and spirit is sought to be stifled or staved off which cannot be countenanced at any rate.

2. Having made all these attempts and having deposited the DRC’s/TDR’s before this Court in the names of the respective complainants (contempt petitioners) except that of the DRC’s/TDR’s in an incorrect name in so far as CP. 103 of 2025 is concerned, further I.A. No. 120858 of 2025 has been filed by the Under Secretary, DPAR, Government of Karnataka (not being a party to be present proceedings) raising fresh grounds and praying for not releasing the DRC’s/TDR’s in favour of the complainants till disposal of the Civil Appeals pending before this Court, and also on the ground that review petitions have been filed for review of the orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 10.12.2024 amongst other grounds.

3. It would not be out of context to note at this juncture itself that contentions raised in the purported compliance affidavits are outside the purview of scrutiny or examination in these proceedings, for the reasons to follow hereinafter.

4. This Court by order dated 10.12.2024 took note of the rival contentions raised and held that the directions issued and/or the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 passed by this court had not been complied with and contemnors had wilfully disobeyed them. However, the contemnors were extended olive branch to purge in the contempt and as such were called upon to file compliance report within six (6) weeks keeping in mind the observations made therein and it was made clear, failure to comply, the Commissioner, BBMP and the Competent Authority for issuance of Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”) should appear in person before this Court, so as to enable this Court to pass further orders. The contemnors were also mulcted with costs and were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the complainants (i.e., contempt petitioners) towards cost of the contempt proceedings. However, CP No. 578 of 2022, came to be dismissed by granting liberty to the complainant to pursue their grievance before the competent authority for issuance of DRC’s/TDR’s on resolution of the inter-se dispute and also holding that successful party to said dispute would be entitled to receive DRC’s/TDR’s as already ordered by this Court.

5. Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties in CP No.578 of 2022 and other connected matters asserted their respective contentions raised in their pleadings. Having regard to the order passed by this court on 10.12.2024, we notice that CP No.578 of 2022 has already been disposed of vide order of even date, and hence, no further order requires to be passed in the said Petition.

6. Pu