- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

C.C.C NO. 297 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUNITHA

D/O LATE KRISHNOJI RAO

AGED 54 YEARS

HOUSE NO.967/1

GROUND FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN ROAD

4^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR

BANGALORE - 560 010

... COMPLAINANT

(BY SHRI IYENGAR S VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI DR. PRADEEP KUMAR HIREMAT

TAHSILDAR

GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216

... ACCUSED

(BY SHRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP)

---

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE

CONTEMPT

OF

COURTS

ACT

AGAINST

THE

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER

PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 25.03.2019 IN

W.P.NO.33086/2018 (KLR-RES) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR FRAMING OF CHARGE THIS

DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 2 -

ORDER

Heard

the

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

complainant and the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the accused.

2.

After perusing the record, we find that this is

one of the several cases which we have come across where

notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court, the

Authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

(for short 'the said Act of 1964') are extremely slow in

effecting the entries in the revenue records.

3.

In this case, the breach alleged is of the

Judgment and order dated 25^th March 2019. Paragraphs 2

and 3 of the said Judgment and order read thus:

"2. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner

as

well

as

the

learned

Additional

Government Advocate. Perused the material

available on record. The same would indicate that

the sale is not in dispute. The said sale has taken

place at the instance of Debt Recovery Tribunal of

Tumakuru, wherein the land in question is sold in

favour of the petitioner who has paid the sale

consideration to the bank through the vendor who

had obtained the loan from the bank by mortgaging

the land in question. Therefore, the learned

Additional Government Advocate, on instructions

from the concerned Officer of Gubbi Taluk would

submit that if four weeks' time is granted, the

respondent authority would consider the petitioner's

application for change of katha and transfer of

katha would be effected at the earliest.

- 3 -

3.

Accordingly, by placing the submission

of the learned Additional Government Advocate on

record, this writ petition is disposed of. While doing

so, the respondent authority is hereby directed to

effect change of katha within four weeks' from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order."

4.

Thus, the said order was passed on the

concession made by the learned Additional Government

Advocate that the application of the complainant will be

considered for change of katha and that the transfer of

katha will be effected at the earliest. The Court granted four

weeks' time to do so from the date of receipt of a copy of

the said order. Along with the letter dated 9^th April 2019,

the accused was served with the certified copy of the

aforesaid order dated 25^th March 2019.

5.

We may note here that the order dated 25^th

March 2019 was passed in a writ petition filed in the year

2018 based on the representations made on 30^th November

2015 and 10^th October 2017. Another representation was

made

by

the

complainant

on

10^th

February

2021

(Annexure-C to this petition) before fling this contempt

proceeding. The said representation was followed by a

letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Tumakuru Sub-

Division addressed to the accused on 15^th February 2021

- 4 -

calling upon him to take action on the basis of the order of

this Court dated 25^th March 2019. Even on 3^rd March 2021,

the Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to the accused

to take action on th