Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 1121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, B.A. PATIL, JJ
Chhayadevi - Petitioner
Versus
Manojkumar Jain Deputy Commissioner, Yadgiri & Another - Respondent
C.C.C. No. 200046 of 2015 (Civil)
Decided On : 02-11-2017
For the Petitioner:Vishwakarmaraj Nayak, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Vilaskumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Breach of Order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The judgment discusses the alleged breach of an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition. The court considered the facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions, the contentions of the complainant, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court analyzed the burden and standard of proof in contempt proceedings and emphasized the need to establish willful disobedience beyond all reasonable doubt. It also highlighted the importance of protecting the majesty of law while ensuring fair and reasonable judgment. Ultimately, the court found that the complainant failed to prove willful disobedience by the accused, leading to the dropping of the contempt proceeding.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, owner of certain properties, alleged that the accused breached an order by demolishing her building without following due process of law, despite a court directive. The accused contended that the complainant voluntarily demolished the building due to public pressure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the complainant, including witness testimony and documents, did not establish willful disobedience by the accused. It noted discrepancies in the complainant's claims and the lack of independent witnesses. As a result, the court dropped the contempt proceeding against the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused willfully disobeyed the court order by demolishing the building, as alleged by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to establish willful disobedience beyond all reasonable doubt in contempt proceedings. It also highlighted the importance of protecting the majesty of law while ensuring fair and reasonable judgment.
Final Decision: The court dropped the contempt proceeding against the accused, as the complainant failed to prove willful disobedience, and the evidence presented did not establish the accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
B.A. PATIL, J.
1. The basis of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘Act’ for short) is the alleged breach of order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.201436-437/2015 (LB-RES). The said order of the learned Single Judge reads as under:-
“The submission made by the petitioner that she is the owner and in possession of the land for the last 80 years and after obtaining prior permission by the competent authorities she has put up construction and inducted State Bank of Hyderabad as its tenant. As things stood thus, the 7th respondent has taken steps to demolish the property which is abutting the main road. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without providing opportunity her property cannot be demolished.
2. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent submits that property of the petitioner could be demolished only after affording opportunity. It is submitted that majority of the residents about 377 filed affidavits and voluntarily vacated. The premises is required to be demolished for widening the road for public purpose.
3. In the light of the submission made by both counsel this writ petition is disposed of. The submission made by the respondent No.7 is taken on record. That the property of the petitioner shall not be demolished without there being due process of law. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.”
2. Facts leading to filing of writ petitions are that petitioner-complainant is the owner in possession of the property bearing Municipal No.1-7-54 (new), 1-7-55 (old), situated at South Road, Yadgir and the property bearing Municipal No.3-3-135 (old) 3-3-136 (new), situated at Ashashariff Mohalla, Yadigir. The complainant succeeded to the said properties from her in-laws and after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipality, she has put up construction of a building. After construction of the building the property bearing Municipal No.3-3-136 was leased in favour of the State Bank of Hyderabad. Subsequently, on 13.2.2015, staff of the accused marked the property in question for the purpose of demolishing the building to the extent of 15 feet without notice to the petitioner-complainant on the premise that the petitioner-complainant had encroached on the public road and that they are intended to widen the road. In that light, on 18.2.2015, accused made a public announcement that owners of the properties should demolish to an extent of 15 feet at their cost. It was threatened that any failure on the part of the owners to demolish their properties, the same would be demolished on 21.2.2015. Being apprehensive, petitioner-complainant filed writ petitions before this Court in WP.Nos.201436-437/2015, which came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge on 23.2.2015 with a direction to respondent No.7-accused No.2 not to demolish the property in question without following due process of law.
3. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that by over reaching the order of the learned Single Judge, accused No.2 called the tenant of the complainant on 9.5.2015 and asked him to vacate the property bearing No.1-7-54 (new) 1-7-55(old) and also threatened that the property in question would be demolished on 10.5.2015. The said fact was intimated by the tenant to the complainant and as such the husband of the complainant informed the accused on 9.5.2015 about the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Despite communicating the said order, on 10.5.2015 accused Nos.1 and 2 by using their power and position, demolished the property of the complainant. Hence, the present contempt petition is filed praying to take appropriate action against the accused for having disobeyed the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. After service of notice, accused Nos.1 and 2 have entered appearance and have filed their written reply in the form of affidavits. Accused No.1 in his reply has contended that at the instance of residents of Yadgir City, who have voluntarily removed their e
