Shylendra Kumar, J

This is a strange case of the complainant having approached this Court invoking Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act after having tasted success in writ jurisdiction in terms of the order dated 19.03.2008 in Writ Petition No.4475/2008. The Learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition after noticing as under:

“4. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the husband of the petitioner had filed an application before the Land Tribunal Sedam. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 20.05.1978 declared that the husband of the petitioner is holding the land in excess to an extent of 94 acres 34 guntas. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner surrendered the lands bearing Sy.Nos.43 measuring 24 acres 35 guntas, Sy.No.140 measuring 21 acres 9 guntas, Sy.No.98 measuring 26 acres 24 guntas and Sy.No.99 measuring 26 acres 32 guntas, in total 99 acres 20 guntas. The petitioner instead of surrendering 94 acres 34 guntas, has surrendered 99 acres 20 guntas of land

i.e. excess land to an extent of 4 acres 26 guntas.

5. On a representation given by the petitioner to release the excess land in her favour, the Tahsildar issued an endorsement stating that if there is any excess land, that can be returned to the petitioner after the survey being conducted. Annexure-A speaks to the fact that after verification, the Tahsildar has ordered to take back the excess land after surveying the land.

6. In view of the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is said to be an excess land surrendered than what was ordered to be Surrendered to the Government. According to the petitioner, 4 acres 26 guntas is said to have been surrendered in excess, for which the petitioner is entitled to take back after surveying the said land by the Survey Authorities, as per the order of the Tahsildar. Pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar, Sedam at Annexure-A, it is for the respondent-authorities to carry out the directions meticulously. The Assistant Director to Survey Settlement is directed to survey the land, in accordance with law at the earliest.

7. Accordingly the petition is allowed.”

2. It is hereafter the contempt petition was filed on 24.02.2009 in CCC No.1331/2009 alleging that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions issued in the writ petition and there has been willful disobedience of the order made in W.P.No.4475/2008. The material averments of the contempt petition are as under:

“5. That, the respondent authorities having received the applications along with the copy of the order in W.P.No.4475/2008 failed to carry out survey work and further failed to release the excess land which has been illegally taken from the complainant. The respondent authorities intentionally disobeyed to carryout the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, thereby committed contempt of Court.”

3. Thereafter the matter had come up before this Court. The order sheet of the petition reads as follows:

VGGJ & LNSJ 16.7.2009: List the matter on Monday i.e. on 20.7.2009.

VGGJ & LNSJ 20.7.2009: At the request of the Learned Government Advocate List this matter on 22.7.2009.

VGGJ & LNSJ 22.7.2009: At the request of the Learned Govt. Advocate, adjourned to next week finally, to report complaint of the order complained of or to get the first respondent present before this Court to hear him before framing charge.

HGRJ & LNSJ 30.7.2009: The Tahsildar, Sedam is present in Court today.

The Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that respondents would comply with the order within three weeks. List on 21.08.2009 for reporting compliance.

NKPJ/RVMJ 21.8.2009: Respondent No.1 – accused is present before the Court.

List this matter next week at the request of the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent-accused, to enable him to comply with the order dated

30.7.09 subject to condition that the 1st respondent shall pay