Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2914
2025 KHC 43241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, JJ.
Sri. Somaling, S/o Ravatappa Madar – Petitioner
Versus
Sri. Shrikant, S/o Adiveppa Hadalasang – Respondent
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 584 OF 2020
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Smt. Sumangala Simimath, Advocate For Sri. Gurudev I Gachchinamath., Advocate
For the Respondent : Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath., Advocate Smt. Mamatha Shetty, Aga, Smt. S. S. Halalli, Advocate
The court found insufficient evidence of willful disobedience of its orders regarding encroachment, leading to the dropping of contempt proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Disobedience of Court order - In a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a Court order to remove encroachments on a public road, the Court found no encroachment following a survey - The accused officials provided evidence of compliance and argued that they lacked authority for removal due to jurisdictional issues. (Paras 6, 11)
(B) Willful Disobedience - The threshold for contempt includes proving willful disobedience, which was not met as the accused demonstrated attempted compliance with the Court's order. (Paras 12)
(C) Public Road and Encroachment - The Court ruled that the petitioners' assertions regarding encroachment were not substantiated by the survey report, which confirmed the absence of a 20-foot public road. (Paras 11)
Facts of the case:
A public road leading to Thamba Village was alleged to have been encroached upon, affecting its width and causing inconvenience. The Court directed local authorities to investigate but found they had complied with the order.
Findings of Court:
The contempt proceedings were dropped, and compliance with the original order was acknowledged via factual reports that disproved the existence of encroachment.
Issues: The key issues included whether the accused wilfully disobeyed the Court order and whether encroachments existed as alleged.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the burden to prove willful disobedience was not satisfied as the accused undertook steps to comply, including surveys and communications, despite jurisdictional limitations.
Result: Contempt proceedings dropped.
ORDER :
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
This contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40717/2019 (PIL).
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that in W.P.No.40717/2019, the petitioners had complained that a public road leading to Thamba Village had been encroached upon, reducing its width and causing serious inconvenience to villagers and visitors. This Court had directed the local authorities to look into the representations made by the petitioners, conduct a proper survey to check for encroachment, and if found, remove it within two months and inform the petitioners about the action taken. However, even after the time fixed by the Court, no steps were taken to comply with those directions. The petitioners, therefore, allege that the concerned officials have wilfully disobeyed the Court’s order and supported the encroacher which has led to the filing of this contempt petition.
3. Smt.Sumangala Simimath, learned counsel for Sri.Gurudev I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the complainants submits that the road which has been encroached is the main entrance road to Thamba Village, and it is used by all the villagers. Every Wednesday is the market day for Thamba Village and many people from nearby villages come there. Because of the encroachment, the 20-feet-wide road has been reduced to only 10 feet, making it difficult for the vehicles and the people to move freely. This has caused great inconvenience to the public and affected the business activities in the Village. It is submitted that though this Hon’ble Court had long back directed the authorities in W.P.No.40717/2019 to conduct a survey and remove the encroachment, but no action has been taken even after the time given by the Court has expired. The accused officials are fully aware of the Court’s order but have deliberately ignored it and are supporting the encroacher instead of taking action. It is further submitted that after the complainant No.4 filed a public interest litigation, the encroacher and his men attacked him and his brothers, causing injuries. Later, a false case was also filed against them to harass them. Despite all this, the authorities have remained silent and taken no action. The affidavits filed by the accused would not satisfy the direction issued by this Court and the complainants have filed their responses to such affidavits. It is also submitted that the accused have willfully disobeyed the orders of this Hon’ble Court, hence, the contempt proceedings should be initiated against them to uphold justice.
4. Per contra, Smt.Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel appearing for the accused No.1 submits that the accused has already taken necessary steps to follow the directions of this Hon’ble Court. As per the Court’s order, he had written a communication letter to the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) on 08.04.2020 requesting a survey of the concerned lands to fix the boundaries. The survey was conducted on 11.06.2020 and 18.06.2020 in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner and complainant No.4. It was found that there was no encroachment by Sri.Rachappa Galed. It is submitted that the portion shown in the survey sketch as encroached, falls under the Public Works Department and Revenue Department limits, and therefore, the accused, being the Panchayat Development Officer, has no power to remove it. It is further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner had orally instructed the accused to stop the removal of encroachment work and that there was no deliberate disobedience of the Court’s order. It is also submitted that any delay in compliance was unintentional and the accused has tendered an unconditional apology for the same. Hence, she seeks to drop the contempt proceedings initiated against accused No.1.
5. Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the accused Nos.2 and 3 submits that the accused have taken al
