K. Manjunatha Rao vs D.K. Rangaswamy

Rathnakala, J.—These Contempt Petitions are filed by the complainants seeking to initiate necessary contempt proceedings against the respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the order dated 18.08.2010, in W.P. Nos. 38584 - 38587 of 2009 vide Annexure ''A''.

The complaint was initially lodged by four complainants jointly. Since, the 3rd complainant expired during the pendency of this contempt petition, the case proceeded on the basis of the complaint filed by remaining complainants.

To put the complaint allegations in a nutshell, the complainants filed a writ petition against the accused persons - accused No. 1/The Deputy Commissioner of Chikmagalur, accused No. 2/The Executive Engineer of the Highways Authority, National Highways Division, Shimoga, accused No. 3/The Assistant Executive Engineer, National Highways Sub-Division, Kadur, accused No. 4/The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kadur and accused No. 5/The Chief Officer of Town Municipality, Kadur, in W.P. Nos. 38584 - 38587 of 2009, praying this Court for a direction to the respondents/accused not to take coercive steps to demolish their buildings situated along BH Road, National Highway No. 206, which is said to be demolished for the purpose of road widening. Their writ petitions came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2010, with a direction that ''the accused if requires the properties of the petitioners, shall not take law into their hands and not forcibly dispossess the lawful owners from the properties and further directed them not to take any coercive steps or forcibly action with regard to the schedule premises except in accordance with law''. But the accused willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 18.08.2010, without any notice to the complainants, without acquiring the lands and without following the due process of law, on 26.04.2012, illegally demolished the buildings of the complainants; though complaint was filed by the complainants before the jurisdictional Police Station, there was no response. On the date of demolition, the complainants informed the accused and their officials, who were present at the spot, that they cannot demolish the buildings without acquisition and without notice to the complainants; the flex boards about the orders passed by this Court were exhibited, mentioning the writ petition numbers on the buildings; but respondent No. 5/The Chief Officer, Town Municipality, Kadur, threatened the complainants of dire consequences and informed them that there is oral direction from the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, he is proceeding with the demolition. Prior to the demolition, the electricity supply was disconnected, their shops were looted. Due to the act of the accused, the complainants suffered heavy loss. There was a direction by this Court in W.P. No. 14217/2012 vide order dated 25.04.2012 filed by similarly placed persons of the neighbourhood that, before commencement of the demolition process, to take photographs of the each structure to enable the respondents/authorities to fix the valuation of the building to be removed in the process of widening after mahazaar in the presence of the petitioner/s and the Panchayath, so that it would enable the respondents/authorities to pay fair/just compensation; the said order was also in the knowledge of the accused persons. Even after two months of the demolition no steps is taken to compensate the complainants. For the willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 18.08.2010 in W.P. Nos. 38584-38587 of 2009, the accused are liable to be punished.

Accused appeared and they filed their counter affidavits. The 1st accused/Deputy Commissioner of Chikamagalur, in his affidavit expresses his ignorance about the order passed in the W.P. Nos. 38584-38587 of 2009, at the relevant point of time, since he was not the Deputy Commissioner of Chikamagalur as on 18.08.2010 and further, denies the allegation of giving any direction to the co-accused, more particularly, to Sri H.N. Manjunath, the Chief Officer of Town Municipality, Kadur, to demolish the buildings.

Accused No. 2/Sri N.R. Umeshappa, the Executive Engineer, National Highways Division, Shimoga, contends that he has not undertaken road widening of N.H. No. 206, running in Kadur Town and has not given direction to any of his subordinates or his co-accused more particularly, accused Nos. 1 and 5 to demolish the buildings. He had no occasion to visit Kadur Town, since his office is situated at Chitradurga.

Accused No. 3/Sri M.G. Jeevan Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, National Highways Sub-Division, Shimoga and accused No. 4/Sri K.C. Ravi Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kadur, have taken the same stand as that of accused No. 2.

Accused No. 5/Sri H.N. Manjunath, the then Chief Officer of Kadur Municipality in his affidavit avers to the effect that there was no occasion for him to demolish the buildings which were constructed and which were existing on N.H. No. 206, BH Road at Kadur Town; in view of supply of water to the residents and laying the pipelines for the supply of drinking water, work was undertaken by the Karnataka Water Supply Sewerage Board; to complete the project, it was required that on both sides of the road, trenches are required to be laid; the decision was taken by the District and Taluk authorities including the Municipality. He had taken charge as the Chief Officer of Kadur Municipality on 31.03.2012? On 22.03.2012, a decision was taken in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, to hold a meeting on 31.03.2012, at 11.00 a.m., in Taluk Panchayath at Kadur. Notice dated 22.03.2012 was issued directing all the concerned Taluk District Officers of all the concerned Departments to participate in the said meeting and he had directed the Revenue Inspectors, Revenue Officers, Engineers and Bill Collectors to issue notice to the owners of the properties, to meet the owners of the properties on either side of the road and to prepare the list of the properties and also request them to be present at the scheduled meeting. He had taken charge of the Chief Officer of the Municipality on 24.09.2010 and he had no knowledge of the writ petitions proceedings. General public and building owners were present at the meeting and expressed full co-operation in laying the water pipelines. On 11.04.2012, a special emergent council body meeting of the Municipality was held and a resolution was taken to dig the trenches on both sides of the road for laying the pipelines for supply of drinking water to the Kadur town and the same was intimated to the general public 15 days in advance. In view of the said decision taken in the meeting, the road of Kadur town was widened by removing encroachments as per the directions of accused No. 2 on the national highway No. 206 and he has not disobeyed or shown any disrespect intentionally or willfully of the orders of this Court.

After hearing both parties, charges were framed and were read out to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and entered into trial.

During trial CWs.1 to 4 were examined for the complainants, documents/Exs. P.1 to P.33 were marked and MOs.1 and 2 were produced. Thereafter, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, incriminating evidence appearing in the statements of the CWs were put to them and they denied the same.

Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed their written statements. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have led their rebuttal evidence as DWs. 1 to 3 and marked documents as Exs. D.1 to D.9.

During the course of arguments on the application moved by the complainants, the charges were amended vide court order dated 24.11.2014, as noted supra. Both parties submitted that they have no further evidence on the amended charge. The amended charge reads as follows:

"That by an order dated 18.08.2010 in W.P. Nos. 38584 - 38587/2009 had directed you not to initiate any action to demolish the building of contempt petitioners without initiating the acquisition proceedings and to take action in accordance with law and you are further directed not to take any forcible action or coercive steps with regard to writ petition schedule premises of the complainant except in accordance with law and inspite of the direction so issued in the aforesaid writ petition, instead of following the orders of this court you - Accused Nos. 1 to 5 wilfully and deliberately dis-obeyed the said order and demolished the property of the petitioners, on 26.04.2012 thereby committed an offence punishable under the Contempt of Court Act and we hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge.

Dated this the 24th day of November, 2014."

On the above facts and circumstances, following points arise for our consideration:

Whether the accused on 26.04.2012, demolished the properties of the complainants?

Whether the accused willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order dated 18.08.2010 of this Court in W.P. Nos. 38584-38587 of 2009 and have committed offence punishable under the Contempt of courts act, 1971?

The complainants entered into trial by examining Sri K.S. Vijay (4th complainant) as C.W.1, who was then the Registrar of the City Civil Court. He has testified to the effect that he is the owner of the property at Kadur town bearing assessment Nos. 4754, 4755 and 4756 situated at B H Road, Kadur town. On the apprehension of illegal demolition of the building, W.P. Nos. 38584-38587 were filed in the year 2009 and those petitions came to be allowed; Ex. P.1 is the certified copy of the order passed in the said writ petitions. There was a direction not to demolish the building without due process of law. In the year 2011, apprehending that the concerned authorities will demolish the building, legal notice/Ex. P. 2 was issued to Chief Officer/A5 and Deputy Commissioner/A1. Accused were served as per the postal acknowledgments as per Exs. P.3 and P.4. Since all the accused were giving press statements about the demolition of the building at Kadur town, on 25.04.2012, he affixed the order passed in W.P. Nos. 38584-38587 of 2009 on the building. MO.1 is the CD. of the photographs of the building in question and Exs. P.5 to P. 14 are the photographs. On 26.04.2012, the accused persons demolished the building and Exs. P.15 to P.20 are the photographs taken after the demolition. MO.2 is the CD. of Exs. P.15 to P.20. MOs.1 & 2 are marked subject to proof, since the video was not exhibited. A complaint as per Ex. P. 21 was lodged to the Kadur Police. Ex. P.22 is the attendance register pertaining to accused No. 6 for the month of April, 2012 and he was on duty on 25.04.2012 and 26.04.2012. He approached the Office of the 5th respondent/accused under Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information and the relevant documents and endorsement are marked as Exs. P.23 to P.26. The information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Police and the relevant documents are marked as Exs. P.27 and P.29. Likewise, the documents obtained from MESCOM is at Ex. P.31 and his application under Right to Information Act is as per Ex. P.30 and the complaint filed in this case is at Ex. P. 32.

During the course of cross-examination, on behalf of accused No. 1, CW-1 testifies to the effect that on the basis of Ex. P.26 (endorsement issued by Kadur Municipality Office on his application seeking information under Right to Information Act) and also on the basis of the statement of accused No. 5 made at the spot, he implicated Sri Rangaswamy, Deputy Commissioner, who is one of the accused. During the course of his cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 2 to 4, he admits that the writ petition filed by them came to be dismissed and the buildings since not yet demolished, he did not seek any compensation. He has no documents to prove his presence at the time of demolition of the buildings. He had obtained endorsement under the Right to Information Act, which stated that they are not widening the road; there is no public demand by the National Highways Authority of India and there was no acquisition proceedings initiated by the National Highway Authorities.

During the Cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 5, it is emerged that, he had issued legal notice to accused No. 5 as per Ex. P.2 and the postal acknowledgment marked as Ex. P.3, is dated 05.11.2011; the property in question stood in the name of his grand father Sri K.M. Kandoji Rao. The photographs Exs. P.7 and P.8 (the building when intact) were taken on 05.11.2008. Himself and accused No. 6 are not seen in the photographs. On 25.04.2012 and 26.04.2012, he did not meet any Officers nor did he not inform the Officers.

CW.2 is an advocate practicing at Kadur, who was the tenant under CW.1, occupying property bearing No. 4754, 4755 and 4756. On behalf of the complainant, he had issued legal notice to the Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Officer. He has stated about the paper publication in ''Prajavani'' newspaper dated 25.04.2012, about the proposal for demolition of the buildings and in consequent upon, the Display Board was affixed on the building informing about the Court order (W.P. Nos. 38584-38587 of 2009) wherein direction was issued that building should not be demolished without due process of law. He has further testified that on 26.04.2012, with the aid of JCB the adjacent buildings were demolished. He approached the Chief Officer and pleaded with him that without issuing notice, he is attempting to demolish the building. For that, he replied that he has not received any Court order and also informed that he has an oral direction from the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, to demolish the building. He sought time to vacate the premises, they declined the prayer and the building was demolished. During that course of demolition, the property kept in the building was looted. During the cross-examination by the accused persons, he admits that he has issued notice to accused Nos. 2 to 4. The order of the writ petition was furnished to him. Except that, no other documents were furnished to him. When he issued the said legal notice relying on the order of the writ petition, CW.1/Vijay was not there. The other complainants were present. He was not able to quote the assessment number of the rule in the adjudication. He denies the suggestion that in the year 2005, National Highway Authorities demolished the encroachment on either side of B.H. Main Road. He admits that there is a difference of 5 to 6 months from the date of demolition and the date of legal notice.

CW.3/Naazu is another tenant in the alleged demolished building and also the photographer by profession. He corroborates the evidence of CW.2 and further states that he has taken photographs Exs. P.5 to P.20 and his shop is shown in Ex. P.19. During cross-examination, he stated that he has produced the CD of the photographs and memory is inserted in the CD (MOs.1 and 2).

CW.4 is the owner of the neighbouring medical shop and a witness to the alleged demolition of the buildings. He has testified that he has also filed writ petition (on similar cause of action). On 26.04.2012, the Chief Officer, TMC, Kadur alongwith his staff and workers demolished the building and digged a trench; inspite of mentioning about the writ petition, the Chief Officer did not heed to his words. The complaint presented to the Superintendent of Police, Chikamagalur on 30.04.2012 is marked as Ex. P.33. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not given any representation to any other authorities. On 26.04.2012, there was no supply of electricity. From 8 p.m. onwards, the building was demolished. He does not know who were present on 26.04.2012 at the spot. Rebuttal evidence is adduced by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5.

The defence of first Accused/DW-1 was, he took charge as Deputy Commissioner of Chikmagalur on 27.05.2011. He came to know about the orders passed in W.P. Nos. 38584-38587/2009 and W.P. No. 14217/2012, only after the receipt of the notices by the Court in the contempt petitions. He has not directed any of the Officers, more particularly, Mr. Manjunath/the then Chief Officer of Kadur Town Municipality to demolish the buildings of the complainants. He was not in Kadur on 26.04.2012. During his cross-examination, it was elicited that he has not issued any acquisition notification for acquiring complainants'' properties. During the further course of his cross-examination, his counter affidavit was marked as Ex. D.6 and a portion of the counter affidavit was marked Ex. D.6(a), which reads as: ''I further state that I came to know about the order dated 18.08.2010 on the file maintained by my office''.

DW.2 totally denied the entire case of the complainants. His case is that, he has not widened N.H. No. 206; no notice was issued for widening the National Highway. Even his subordinates have not issued any notification for widening of National Highway. He admits in his counter affidavit at para No. 10 that only for the purpose of water supply to the residents of Kadur, the Water Supply Department has prepared project for laying the pipeline.

DW.3/H.N. Manjnath, the then Chief Officer, Town Municipality, Kadur, testifies that he worked as the Chief Officer from 24.09.2010 to 15.05.2012. From the second year of his tenure, there was problem relating to drinking water. The State Government undertook the drinking water project to Kadur town from Bhadra Reservoir. The meetings were held at Vidhana Soudha. The said meetings were attended by the District Officer, the Engineers of the National Highway, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Kadur Town; Executive Engineer, MESCOM, Kadur Town; Sri D.K. Rangaswamy, Deputy Commissioner and MLA of Kadur and Tarikere. In the said meeting, it was decided to implement the drinking water project at an earlier date to Kadur town by laying the pipelines on both sides of the National Highway No. 206. The Deputy Commissioner issued a notice dated 22.03.2012 intimating the Taluk Officials of Kadur Town and other concerned officials inviting for meeting. The said notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.03.2012 is at Ex. D.7. Thereafter meeting of all the officials and public was held on 31.03.2012, in the matter of laying the pipelines for drinking water project, under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner and the M.L.A. In the said meeting, it was decided to lay pipelines for water project immediately and in view of the same, he dug the trenches for the purpose of laying the pipelines. When the writ petitions were filed, he was not working as the Chief Officer of Kadur Municipality and he has no knowledge of those writ petitions. He was not served with the copy of the notice. They dug the trenches with the help of JCB having the width sufficient for laying the pipelines. They have not touched any of the buildings adjoining the trenches or the highway in Kadur Town. None of the complainants or the public at large objected digging of the trenches for the purpose of lying pipes. The trenches were dug adjacent to both sides of Highway and such trenches will not affect the buildings. The National Highway Authorities have widened the National Highway in the year 2005 and subsequently in the year 2009. He has not demolished any buildings of the public for laying the pipelines. He was in the Office on the date of the order of the Court, a portion of which goes contrary to his admitted statement. During the cross- examination he admits the averments made in his counter affidavit, marked as Ex. D.9, which read thus:

"6. I submit that in view of the decision taken in the said meetings the road in Kadur was widened by removing encroachments as per the direction of the Accused No. 2, hence, I have not violated orders passed by this Hon''ble Court. The road which was widened is not the internal road and it is National Highway No. 206, hence as a Chief Officer I can not take independent decision, as in respect of the National Highways the Accused No. 1 and 2 has to take decision with the consult of National Highway Authority of India."

During further course of cross-examination, he admits the suggestion that JCB machines were taken to the spot, in which the digging of earth was done for the purpose of laying the pipes. He was cross-examined by the learned Counsel representing accused No. 1. During the said course, he has categorically stated that Sri D.K. Rangaswamy, the then Deputy Commissioner has not directed him or any of the Officials of the Municipality either orally or in writing to demolish the buildings of the complainants or any of the private owners.

Ex. P.1 is the certified copy of the order which is said to have been violated by the accused persons. The Writ Petition Nos. 38584 - 38587/2009 (Annexure -A) is filed by the petitioners under writ jurisdiction seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take coercive steps to demolish the schedule premises and also not to dispossess the petitioners except in accordance with law. Their contention in the said writ petition was that, they are the absolute owners of the properties having several shops and commercial establishments and in the guise of widening the road, the respondents are attempting to demolish their premises, without there being any acquisition or authority of law. The respondents/accused have filed their objections stating that if there is any acquisition, they will proceed with only in accordance with law. In the said circumstances, the learned single Judge disposed of the petitions with following observation:

"4. After hearing, I am of the considered view that no action can be initiated by the respondents except in accordance with law. In case the respondents require the property of the petitioners, they shall do so only in accordance with law. In the absence of any acquisition or any notice with regard to the schedule premises, they cannot take law into their own hands and forcibly dispossess the petitioners.

For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents are directed not to take any forcible action or coercive steps with regard to the schedule premises of the petitioners except in accordance with law.

Petitions are disposed off".

With this backdrop, when the complaint allegation viz a viz evidence of PWs are perused, there is not even a spell of word about the indulgence either directly or indirectly in the alleged act of demolition by accused No. 2 - Executive Engineer of Highways Authority, accused No. 3 - Assistant Executive Engineer of National Highways Sub-Division and accused No. 4 -Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD Department. None of CWs have stated about the presence of these accused persons at the spot while the alleged demolition was going on. Their stand is, the roads were not widened, no notification was issued for widening the National Highway, there was no acquisition and no documentary material is produced by the complainants to saddle the vicarious liability of the alleged demolition against these accused persons. Safely, these accused persons, namely accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, escape from the charges alleged against them.

Now coming to accused No. 1, though accused No. 5 had pleaded that as per the oral instruction of accused No. 1, he has demolished the buildings, but the very same accused No. 5 during the cross-examination as DW.3 admits at page No. 20 of his cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 1, ''Sri Rangaswamy the then Deputy Commissioner (accused No. 1) has not directed me or any of the officials of the municipality either orally or in writing to demolish any of the buildings of the complainants or any of the private owners''. Though it was pleaded in the complaint that they were informed by the 5th accused that there was oral direction from the Deputy Commissioner and hence, he is proceeding with the demolition, except that, there is no averment in the complaint about the physical presence of the Deputy Commissioner at the spot during the demolition of the buildings. In that view of the matter, accused No. 1 also gets out of the reach of the charges and the needle points out towards accused No. 5 only. Going through the counter affidavit filed on his appearance to the notice issued, he has stated that, ''in view of supply of water to the residents and laying the pipe lines for the supply of drinking water has been undertaken by the Karnataka Water Supply Sewerage Board for the said purpose in order to complete the project it was required that on both side of the road trenches were required to be laid; it was the decision taken up by the District & Taluk authorities including the Municipality''. He took charge of the Municipality on 24.09.2010. A decision was taken on 22.03.2012 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner to hold a meeting on 31.03.2012, at 11 a.m., at the Taluk Panchayath, Kadur, under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner. Notice dated 22.03.2012 was issued to all the concerned officials as per Annexure D1 and prior to the meeting, the Officials of the Municipality had met the owners of the buildings on either side and the owners of the properties were intimated to be present in the meeting. Accordingly, they were present in the meeting and had expressed their co-operation to lay the pipelines. A special emergent council body meeting was held on 11.04.2012 and a direction was taken to dig the trenches on both sides of the road for laying the pipe line to supply the drinking water to the residents of Kadur town and the same was intimated to the general public fifteen days in advance.

Contrarily in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he has stated that as there was no demolition, no notice was issued. He admits question No. 39 that as per the deposition of CW.4 that on 26.04.2012, he and his staff demolished the buildings and digged a trench inspite of mentioning about the filing of the writ petition. The complainant has filed an application/Ex. P. 23 before the Municipality Office, Kadur, seeking information under Right to Information Act. In Ex. P.23, it is stated that through loud speakers, the Municipality Office is announcing widening of 50 feet road from NH No. 206 for the supply of drinking water to Kadur town and the details of the acquisition of the land from the private owners was sought. The reply has been sent to the applicant as per endorsement Ex. P. 24 that it is informed to widen the road by 50 feet on both sides of NH 206 for the purpose of laying pipe lines and there is no order of the government in this regard. In another application as per Ex. P.25 under Right to Information Act, information regarding authority for widening of NH 206 is sought. As per Ex. P.26 dated 11.04.2012, the Public Relation Officer in his endorsement dated 07.05.2012, informs that as per the resolution of the meeting held on 31.03.2012, under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner along with other Departments, MLA and also other representatives, it was published in the ''Praja Vani'' news paper on 09.04.2012, that the Municipality Office will take action to widen the road to an extent of 50 feet and the Municipal Office is not in receipt of the orders passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 40696/2011 and they are evacuating the buildings to the extent of 50 feet. Ex. P.29 is an endorsement issued by PSI, Kadur Police Station that no police help was sought either by Municipal Office or Taluk Administration in respect of road widening and no police were placed on that day in respect of road widening. Ex. P.30 is the information furnished under the Right to Information Act stating that no request was made to the MESCOM, to disconnect electricity on 26.04.2012, for widening of NH 206 road, but voluntarily in the interest of the public and to avoid casualties, electricity was disconnected near NH No. 206.

On the showing of the complainants themselves through loud speakers, they had the information about the road widening for the purpose of laying the pipe lines. Exs. P.5 to P.8 are the photos of the demolished building. As the photos themselves suggest, they have been taken on 05.11.2008, Exs. P.9, P. 10 P. 11, 12, 13 and 14 are the photos with the flex hanging in front of the shop, wherein, the order passed in W.P. Nos. 38584-38587/2009 dated 18.08.2010 has been mentioned. The presence of the JCB of the Municipal Office, is seen in photos Exs. P.10, 12 to 16. Further Exs. P.17 to P.20 are the photos of the demolished structure but the date and time of the photographing is not forthcoming. The application filed under the Right to Information Act by the complainant at Ex. P.23 suggests that there was a vide publication in the town through loud speakers for the purpose of laying the water pipes. Accused No. 5 having taken the charge as the Officer of the Municipality Office, Kadur, on 24.09.2010, may not be personally aware of the orders passed by this Court on 18.08.2010. During the course of cross-examination of Accused No. 4, it was suggested that the owners of the buildings adjoining the National Highway were invited, as already admitted by him; said suggestion falsifies the case of the complainant that there was no prior notice to them before demolition. At page No. 14 of his cross-examination, to one of the suggestions, he has stated that "we demolished the buildings for the purpose of laying the water pipes for drinking purpose", which by itself takes into his fold that the trenches were dug on 26.04.2012. Laying of the trenches on 26.04.2012, being an admitted fact, there being no material about any action being taken for widening of the National Highways, it probablises that while digging the trenches, respondent No. 5 damaged the buildings belonging to the complainants. The Accused categorically deny having committed any such act. Nothing prevented the complainants, who have taken the photos while the building was intact, and after its demolition, to take photos at the time of demolition. CW.1 at the time of producing a sealed cover stated that, at the time of demolition of the buildings, video graph was also taken. He has stated that, ''Now, I see the CD. Of the photographs of the building in question. This CD. is marked as Mo.1." He further produced Mo.2/CD. pertaining to video taken at the time of demolition. Both Mos.1 and 2 are marked subject to proof, since the video was not exhibited. But the complainants at the time of argument, gave up to prove the CDs alleged to have been taken. They have filed a memo dated 10.12.2014, which reads thus:--

"It is submitted that the photographs Exs. P.5 to Ex. P.20 are marked in the evidence. The complainants have also produced the CD''s of the photographs marked as MO.1 & MO. 2. It is submitted that since the original photographs are marked in evidence, the viewing of CD''s M.O.1 & M.O.2 are not necessary and the same is not pressed."

That the allegation of demolition of the building on 26.04.2012 is not proved either by any independent witness or by photographs or videographs. We say so because CW1 is the complainant and CW2 & CW3 are the tenants of the building and CW4/a neighbour is a complainant in a similar matter pending before this court. In that view of the matter, there is no corroboration to the oral evidence of the interested witnesses to prove the alleged demolition of 26.04.2012.

It is pertinent to note here that the accused have brought on record by way of Ex. D.1 and Ex. D.4 that in the postal acknowledgements in Exs. P.3 and P. 4 for having served the notice/Ex. P.2 dated 10.11.2011, to accused Nos. 1 and 5, that these are the postal acknowledgements dated 05.11.2011. The post office seal at Ex. D.4 clearly mentions the date as 05.11.2011 and the seal of Deputy Commissioner is dated 05.11.2011, which is marked at Exs. P.3 and P.4 as Exs. D.1 and 4; that is sufficient to infer that the complainants without serving the notice Ex. P.2 on accused Nos. 1 and 4, are misrepresenting before the Court that they have informed accused Nos. 1 and 5 about the orders passed in W.P. Nos. 38584-38587/2009, disposed of on 18.08.2010.

Three of the complainants of this case and the father of the 4th complainant namely K. Sathyanarayana Rao, had filed a petition in W.P. No. 26195/2005 (GM-RES). The respondents in the said petition were Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Public Works Department; Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority, Chickmaglaur; Assistant Executive Engineer, National Highways Sub-Division, PWD, Kadur. The petition was filed with the allegation that the National Highways Authority within the limits of TMC Kadur, is threatening to demolish and dispossess the petitioners from their premises. The respondents in the said case filed their objections on 15.03.2006, that the Public Works Department has extended the width of the National Highway after issuing a notification after calling upon all the residents, encroachers of the road to remove unauthorized encroachment and have since pulled down the buildings falling within the encroached portions for extending the Highway. In the light of the submissions made for the State, the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate representation to the concerned authorities for compensation and damages, and consideration of the same by the authorities in accordance with law. The certified copy of the said order is at Ex. P1.

The writ appeal forwarded by the complainants came to be dismissed with the observation as marked at Ex. D.3, reads thus:

"We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record. The material on record would clearly show that Writ Petition was filed for direction to the respondents not to demolish and dispossess the petitioners from the building premises situated at Assessment Nos. 4754/4657, 4755/4548, 4756/4649 at Kadur Town, Chickmagalur District belonging to the petitioners, except in accordance with law and procedure. The building belonging to the petitioners has been already demolished by the respondents for extending the width of National Highway and therefore the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous. However, learned Single Judge has safeguard the interest of the petitioners by ordering that petitioners are at liberty to file representation to the respondent authorities for compensation and damages and same shall be considered by the authorities in accordance with law within three months from the date of order and therefore having regard to the above said materials on record, it is clear that order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this intra Court Appeal. Accordingly we hold that there is no merit in these appeals and pass the following order:

Order Writ Appeals are dismissed."

The contention of the 5th accused gets support from the counter affidavit filed by accused No. 2 wherein, he has averred that ''...For that purpose, the Water Supply Department has removed the obstructing structures on the line of laying the water pipes''. Though in the complaint, complainants say that for the purpose of widening of the road, without following the procedure as per law established, in gross violation of the orders passed by this Court, the accused persons demolished their buildings, at the stage of cross-examination of the Accused 4, it was suggested that the buildings are demolished for the purpose of laying water pipes for drinking purpose. However, the accused contended that pipes were laid with the use of JCB machines, abutting the National Highway which is earmarked for the footpath.

The pivotal question now being, whether the act alleged amounts to civil contempt as envisaged in Section 2(b) of the Act, the said definition clause reads as under:

Section 2(b): "Civil Contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court"

The scope of civil contempt, the practice and procedure to be followed in contempt proceedings, the nature of pleadings required, the standard of proof expected, the rights of the alleged contemnor and the principles governing the area in the light of Article 215 of the Constitution of India is discussed in detail by the Apex Court in the case of Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , at paragraph Nos. 15 to 27:

"15. The proceedings of contempt are quasi-criminal in nature. In a case where the order passed by the court is not complied with by mistake, inadvertence or by misunderstanding of the meaning and purport of the order, unless it is intention, no charge of contempt can be brought home. There may possibly be a case where disobedience is accidental. If that is so, there would be no contempt. [Vide B.K. Kar v. Chief Justice and Justices of the Orissa High Court (AIR p. 1370, para 7).]

Similarly, in Debabrata Bandopadhyay v. State of West Bengal, this Court has observed as under: (AIR p. 193, para 9)

"9. A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behaves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished.... Punishment under the law of Contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one''s duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged."

(emphasis supplied)

The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union, Dushyant Somal (Capt.) v. Sushma Somal, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar, Niaz Mohammed v. State of Haryana and Manish Gupta v. Gurudas Roy.

The Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Bihar v. Sonabati Kumari, held that the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the 1971 Act") deal with the wilful defiance of the order passed by the Court. Order of punishment be not passed if the Court is satisfied that the party was, in fact, under a misapprehension as to the scope of the order or there was an unintentional wrong for the reason that the order was ambiguous and reasonably capable of more than one interpretation or the party never intended to disobey the order but conducted himself in accordance with the interpretation of the order.

In Sukhdev Singh v. Teja Singh, this Court placing reliance upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Andre Paul Terence Ambard v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tabago, held that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-criminal in nature and orders passed in those proceedings are to be treated as orders passed in criminal cases.

In S. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash, Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulat, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey, and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. L.K. Tripathi, this Court held that burden and standard of proof in contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, is the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings, for the reason that contempt proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature.

Similarly, in Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman, this Court placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, including, V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta and Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kumar Newatia, held that jurisdiction of contempt has been conferred on the Court to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, but in the case of quasi- criminal in nature, charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and alleged contemnor becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt. It would be very hazardous to impose sentence in contempt proceedings on some probabilities.

In Dr. L.P. Misra v. State of U.P., this Court dealt with an untoward incident i.e. ex-facie contempt in Allahabad High Court wherein, the High Court passed certain orders without following the procedure prescribed in the rules applicable in such proceedings. This Court held that power of the High Court even under Article 215 of the Constitution has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Court observed as under:

"12. ...we are of the opinion that the Court while passing the impugned order had not followed the procedure prescribed by law. It is true that the High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India but such a jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It is in these circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained."

(Emphasis supplied)

In Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., this Court held that in contempt proceedings the court must conclude the trial and complete the proceedings "in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law". However, for enforcing the order passed by the Court "a roving enquiry is not permissible". The proceedings had to be completed most expeditiously and the court has to permit the parties to cross-examine the witnesses to enable the court to reach a particular finding.

The Court should not punish an alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises in criminal contempt. (Vide T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan, Afzal &. v. State of Haryana, Arundhati Roy, In re, Prem Surana v. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court and S.R. Ramaraj v. Special Court).

In R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, this Court while dealing with the same issue held as under: (SCC p.157, paras 140-141)

"140. ...Now, it is one thing to say that the standard of proof in a contempt proceeding is no less rigorous than a criminal trial but it is something entirely different to insist that the manner of proof for the two proceedings must also be the same.

It is now well settled and so also the High Court has held that the proceeding of contempt of court is sui generis. In other words, it is not strictly controlled by the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act. What, however, applies to a proceeding of contempt of court are the principles of natural justice and those principles apply to the contempt proceeding with greater rigour than any other proceeding. This means that the court must follow a procedure that is fair and objective; that should cause no prejudice to the person facing the charge of contempt of court and that should allow him/her the fullest opportunity to defend himself/herself"

(Emphasis added).

This Court In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, has observed that a contempt amounts to an offence but it is an offence sui generis and hence for such an offence, the procedure adopted both under the common law and the statute law has always been summary. The Court held that in spite of the fact that it is a summary procedure, there must be an opportunity to the alleged contemnor of meeting the charge. The degree of precision with which the charge may be stated depends upon the circumstances. So long as the gist of the specific allegation is made clear or otherwise the contemnor is aware of the specific allegation, it is not always necessary to formulate the charge. So long as the contemnor''s interest is adequately safeguarded by giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence, even summary procedure in the case of contempt cannot be found fault with.

In Daroga Singh, this Court observed that in case the alleged contemnor feels that there is a necessity to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. the deponents of affidavits filed against him, the alleged contemnor must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses provided it is so asked by him. This Court observed that in Contempt proceedings, a summary procedure is to be adopted for the reason that matter is to be disposed of most expeditiously and it is for this reason that in spite of the fact that proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the procedure under Cr.P.C. or the Evidence Act is not made applicable.

In view of the above, the law can be summarised that the High Court has a power to initiate the contempt proceedings suo motu for ensuring the compliance of the orders passed by the Court. However, contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the same standard of proof is required in the same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the Criminal Jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision. The alleged contemnor is to be informed as what is the charge, he has to meet. Thus, specific charge has to be framed in precision. The alleged contemnor may ask the Court to permit him to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. deponents of affidavits, who have deposed against him. In spite of the fact that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called, "Cr.P.C") and Evidence Act are not attracted for the reason that proceedings have to be concluded expeditiously. Thus, the trial has to be concluded as early as possible. The case should not rest only on surmises and conjectures. There must be clear and reliable evidence to substantiate the allegations against the alleged contemnor. The proceedings must be concluded giving strict adherence to the statutory Rules framed for the purpose".

When the matrix of the case in hand is examined, in the light of the above principle, it is evident direct or indirect which can saddle the culpability of accused Nos. 1 to 4. Though there is some evidence which probablises the complicity of accused No. 5 in the alleged demolition of building, it cannot be lost sight of that he had taken charge as the Chief Officer of Municipality Town, Kadur, from 24.09.2010. The postal acknowledgements/Exs. D.1 and D.4 produced by the complainants to establish that they were informed about the orders passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 38584 - 38587 of 2009 (GM-Res) disposed of on 18.08.2010, by way of a notice/Ex. P.2 is a concocted document. Likewise, no documentary proof is produced to demonstrate that they had the knowledge of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. 14127/2012, disposed of on 25.04.2012. Paragraph No. 4 of the said petition reads as follows:

"4. It is for the respondents authority to issue notice to the petitioner or similarly placed persons before commencement of the demolishing process; to take photographs of the each structure to enable the respondents authority to fix the valuation of the structure to be removed in the process of widening after mahazar in the presence of the petitioner and Panchayath so as to enable the respondents authority to pay fair/just compensation. However, it is made clear that, if there is encroachment by the petitioner or some other persons of the property ear-marked as that of the Government, petitioner/similarly placed persons are not entitled for any compensation".

Further more, the complainants have suppressed the vital fact of this case that the order passed in writ petition No. 26195/2005 disposed of on 30.11.2007, wherein it was observed in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, as per Ex. D.2, which reads as under:

"2. The petition is opposed by the State and its authorities by filing statement of objections dated 15.3.2006 inter alia contending that the Public Works Department the owner of the road in question have extended the width of the National Highway after issuing a notification calling upon all the encroachers of the road to remove unauthorized encroachment and have since pulled down the buildings falling within the encroached portions for extending the Highway.

In the light of the statement of objections that the respondent-authorities have since demolished the buildings and extended the width of the National Highway, the relief in this petition is rendered infructuous. Does it mean that the petitions have no right to seek compensation if they are otherwise legally entitled to? In my opinion, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate representation to the respondent-authorities for compensation and damages, and consideration of the same by the authorities in accordance with law, would meet the ends of justice."

The very fact that the petitioners were not satisfied by the relief granted to them in their Writ Petition No. 26195/2005 (GM-RES), is established by their conduct in taking the matter in Writ Appeal Nos. 1857, 2351 and 52/2008 (GM-RES), which came to be dismissed with the observations as per Ex. D.3 extracted supra. If really the National Highway Authorities had made misrepresentation to the Court that they have already demolished the building, we are at a loss to understand what prevented the complaints to bring to the notice of the learned Single Judge or the bench which was headed by the then Hon''ble Chief Justice about the fact that buildings are not demolished. When the 4th Accused is totally denying the case of the complainants about demolition of the buildings on 26.04.2012, none of the photos produced by the complainants show his presence at the place of occurrence. No photos are taken while the demolition was under process. Though they claim that there was no notice to them, it is evident by their own conduct in applying under Right to Information Act seeking information about the authority of the Municipality and also filing the Writ Petition No. 14127/2012 (GM-RES) that they had the prior knowledge of the alleged incidence. If the Highway Authorities have long back cleared the road to a width of 50 meters from the center point of the road, then what is the necessity for the Municipal Authority to trespass into the buildings of the private parties and to demolish the buildings.

Sri S.S. Koti, learned Counsel for the 5th accused submits that even if the Court were to hold that the 5& accused has damaged the buildings under the ownership of the complainants, then also he is entitled for exoneration of the charges, since, he had no personal gain for himself or enmity against the complainants by demolition of buildings.

In the light of the discussion supra, we hold that there is no evidence manifesting the complicity of accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the alleged act of demolition of the buildings belonging to the complainants. The act done by him in his official capacity in pursuance of administrative action for the benefit of the public, in consequence of a meeting held on 31.03.2012 wherein, the meeting headed by the Deputy Commissioner in the presence of local MLA and other District Authorities for which he could not substantiate by way of documentary proof since is transferred from Kadur, does not fall within the category of civil contempt contemplated under Section 2(b) of the Act. The evidence on record falls short of civil contempt in the absence of a cogent and clear case of ''willful disobedience of the order which is the basic element of civil contempt. In that view of the matter, complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 4 is liable to be dismissed for want of evidence against them and accused No. 5 deserves benefit of doubt. Hence, the following:

ORDER

1) These Contempt Petitions are dismissed.

2) Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted of the charge of willfully and deliberately disobeying the order of this Court in W.P. Nos. 38584-38587/2009 and demolishing the properties of the complainants on 26.04.2012, thereby committing an offence punishable under Contempt of Courts Act.

3) However, the dismissal of these petitions shall not disable the complainants from working out their just and reasonable compensation and damages in accordance with law, by filing a appropriate representation and establishing the extent of damages they have suffered consequent upon the demolition of the properties, under their lawful ownership and possession, within one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order."