AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—This contempt petition is filed by the complainants alleging that the accused has committed willful disobedience of the order dated 02.07.2007 passed in the Writ Petition No. 10247/2007.
By the said order, the learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the accused to consider the representation dated 05.08.2005 (at Annexure-E to the writ petition) and comply with the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-division, Bangalore (at Annexure-D to the writ petition), within the outer limit of eight weeks.
The case of the complainants is that the order dated 02.07.2007 containing the said direction had been served on the accused on 07.07.2007. The complainants contend that the Assistant Commissioner had directed the accused to restore the khatha in the name of the complainants, in respect of their respective lands and in spite of the direction of this Court in W.P. No. 10247/2007, the accused has not implemented the order of the Assistant Commissioner. It is therefore alleged that the accused has willfully disobeyed the order, having no respect for the order of this Court and has accordingly committed contempt.
The accused, on entering appearance, filed his counter affidavit and has, at the outset, stated that he has great respect for the orders of this Court and he has no intention to disobey the same. With regard to the allegations made in the contempt petition, the accused has stated that he has taken all steps to dispose of the matter as directed by this Court. The accused has in fact stated that even before the instant direction was issued in the writ petition, the accused had taken note of the remand order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No. 319/03-04 and had passed an order on 07.04.2006 disposing of the proceedings. In spite of being aware of the said order, the complainant, by suppressing the said fact had filed W.P. No. 10247/2007 and had obtained the direction for consideration in terms thereof. Though an earlier order dated 07.04.2006 had been passed, in order to further comply with the direction of this Court, a fresh order was again passed on 09.10.2007 and an endorsement was issued on 16.10.2007. The accused therefore states that there is no disobedience of the order much less willful disobedience and has therefore sought for dropping of the proceedings by dismissing the petition with exemplary costs.
The complainants, however, filed their rejoinder statement disputing the contentions put forth by the accused with regard to the order being passed on 07.04.2006. It was further contended that in view of the nature of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, while remanding the matter to the accused, the accused ought to have restored the khatha and he had no authority to sit over the judgment of the Assistant Commissioner and arrive at different finding-Reference is also made with regard to the manner in which the proceedings were disposed of by the accused. Hence the contention urged in the complaint was once again reiterated.
In the background of the above, this Court on a preliminary consideration of the rival pleadings, arrived at the prima facie opinion that the charge is to be framed in the instant case. Accordingly, the charge was framed on 02.07.2008, which reads as hereunder:
That you K.B. Siddalingaiah, The Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, being the accused/Respondent in the above case was directed by an order of this Court dated 2nd July 2007 in W.P. No. 10247/2007 (KLR-RES) to consider the representation dated 05.08.2005 of the complainants/Petitioners produced at Annexure ''E'' to the writ petition and to comply with the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore vide Annexure-D to the writ petition. Though you have passed an order on 09.10.2007 produced at Annexure-R2 filed along with the counter and have held there was no grant order and as such, the katha cannot be entered in the name of the complainants. The said order of yours is clearly contrary to the entries made in the grant register and also direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner. As such, you have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 02.07.2007 and thereby you have committed an offence u/s 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act punishable under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The accused did not plead guilty of the charges and since he sought to be tried, the evidence was recorded. The first complainant was examined as CW. 1 and the documents at Exhs.P1 to PS(b) were marked. The accused examined himself as DW. 1 and a witness was examined as DW.2. The documents at Exhs.D1 to D13 were marked.
We have heard Sri G.G. Shastri, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainants as well as Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, the learned Counsel for the accused and have perused the papers including the oral as well as the documentary evidence referred to above.
In order to consider the case in its correct perspective, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge and the disobedience of which is alleged, requires to be taken note of, at the outset. The same reads as hereunder:
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the wit petition filed by Petitioners stands disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the representation dated 5th August 2005 vide Annexure-E and comply with the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore vide Annexure-D as referred above and dispose of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already considered and disposed of.
Since the said order directs the competent authority viz., the accused herein to comply with the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-division and also since it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainants that in view of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the accused had no option but to restore the khatha, the relevant portion of the order dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner also requires to be noticed. The said order is marked as Ex.P1 and the English translation of the operative portion of the order as furnished by the complainants reads as hereunder:
The documents available on records are examined.
The orders passed by the Tahsildar in R.R.T. (Jaala) CR 892/03-04 dated 20/10/2003 and M.R. No. 5/03-04 dated 22/10/2003 in respect of land Sy. No. 67 situated at Kaadiganahalli village, Jaala Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk are improper and contrary to law and the eligibility in the claim of the Appellants is confirmed. Hence, the said orders are quashed and further ordered to register the Khatha in respect of the said lands after thoroughly examining all the grant records and revenue records and after providing sufficient opportunity to the Appellants herein.
(emphasis supplied)
Firstly, a perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner to which the learned Single Judge has made reference would, at the outset, indicate that the Assistant Commissioner after considering the case of the complainants had remanded the matter to the accused. It is no doubt true that the Assistant Commissioner while setting aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 20.10.2003 in RRT (Jaala) CR 892/03-04 had come to the conclusion that the said order was passed without providing opportunity and is contrary to law and as such M.R.5/03-04 dated 22.10.2003 in the name of the Government is not sustainable. While coming to the said conclusion, the Assistant Commissioner had also referred to the order dated 24.12.1978 passed by the Deputy Commissioner relating to grant and had taken note of the manner in which the M.R. No. 15/93-94 and M.R. No. 16/93-94 had been passed mutating the khatha in favour of the complainants. Notwithstanding such observation made during the course of the order, ultimately the matter was only remanded for reconsideration with a direction to advert to the aspect relating to the grant etc., and the Assistant Commissioner has not concluded the right to the property as absolute. This is clear from the ultimate direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner in the order dated 03.06.2005. Though the order dated 20.10.2003 and M.R. No. 5/03-04 was set aside, the reversal was not made absolute and no unequivocal direction was issued to reverse the mutation entries. Instead, the Tahsildar was directed to thoroughly examine all grant records and revenue records after providing opportunity to the complainants herein. Hence, it is clear that, what was expected of the accused is to reconsider the matter afresh after providing opportunity and there was no direction to decide in any particular manner.
In that regard, though the learned Counsel for the complainants, at this juncture has contended otherwise, the face that the complainants had also considered it as a remand for fresh determination by the Tahsildar is clear from the fact that the complainants had entered appearance through their counsel as seen from the vakalathnama marked at Ex.D1 and the written arguments at Ex.D2. The documents at D.6 and D.7 also relate to the said proceedings. In that light, if the order of the learned Single Judge is perused, it would indicate that on accepting the contention on behalf of the complainants that the matter has not yet been reconsidered by the Tahsildar, after the remand order by the Assistant Commissioner, has directed the Accused-Tahsildar to dispose the same in accordance with law since the complainants had sought for such relief vide their representation dated 05.08.2005 which was at Annexure-E to the writ petition. A further perusal of paragraph-4 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would indicate that the intention was only to direct disposal of the matter one way or the other in accordance With law and there is no direction to dispose the matter in any particular manner. Hence, both by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, it was for the Accused to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, by considering the documents and after providing opportunity to the parties concerned.
In that backdrop, the question for consideration is as to whether the Accused has considered and disposed of the proceedings which was remanded by the Assistant Commissioner, if not, whether there is disobedience of the direction issued in W.P. No. 10247/2007? The relevant order dated 02.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge has been extracted above and a careful perusal of the same would indicate that the direction issued is also qualified by stating "if not already considered and disposed of. It is in that context, the Accused has relied on the order dated 07.04.2006 passed by him, which is marked as Ex.D.4. Since the said order had been passed by the accused, after the remand order dated 03.06.2005 (Ex.P1) made by the Assistant Commissioner, there was nothing more to be done in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as the direction of the Assistant Commissioner had already been followed.
The learned Counsel for the complainant however contended that no such order had been passed. In that regard, it was contended, if that was a fact, the accused would not have passed the subsequent order dated 09.10.2007 (Ex.P4) and would not have issued the endorsement dated 16.10.2007 (Ex.P7) informing the complainants about passing the said order. The said contention does not appeal to us due to the fact that not only the order dated 07.04.2006 is marked as Ex.D.4, but the document at Ex.D.3 would indicate that the second complainant herein addressed an application dated 18.04.2006 to the accused-Tahsildar seeking for issue of the certified copy of the order passed by him. The certified copy of the order was in fact supplied to the second complainant on the very same day, which has been acknowledged on the application (Ex.D3). Despite the same, the writ petition was filed feigning ignorance of the order, which had already been passed. In fact, the accused is justified in contending that the writ petition was filed by the complainants without disclosing the true facts.
The materials would further disclose that the accused has also passed the second order dated 09.10.2007 after the present contempt petition was filed, though an earlier order had been passed. The said order (Ex.P4) in its content refers to the earlier order dated 07.04.2006 (Ex.D4). Both the order dated 7.4.2006 in RRT (Dispute) CR. 25/05-06 and the order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the accused, on the face of it indicates detailed consideration of the matter and also the claim of the complainants of having acquired title to the property by way of grant, more particularly with reference to the order dated 24.12.1978 of the Deputy Commissioner has been referred to. On referring to the said aspect of the matter, the accused has assigned his reasons to come to the conclusion that the claim of grant, as put forth by the complainants cannot be accepted. Though we have referred to this aspect of the matter, the observation shall not be construed as a finding rendered by us on merit with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the accused. On the other hand, we have referred to that aspect of the matter with a view to consider the fact that the accused has taken note of the direction of the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 3.6.2005 (Ex.P1) to thoroughly examine the grant records and revenue records after providing opportunity to the complainants.
The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that the document at Ex.P8 is the saguvali register and the name of the complainants is indicated at Exhs.P8(a) and P8(b). To dispute the said contention, the learned Counsel for the accused has referred to the evidence of DW.2, who was the Tahsildar at Devanahalli during the relevant point in the year 1978. He has disputed the signatures on the documents Ex. Nos. P-5 and 6 which was relied on by the complainants and the same is the basis for the said documents. Though these rival aspects of the matter have been contended, we do not propose to go into the validity or otherwise of the grant, inasmuch as the same is not open to be considered in these proceedings, but the same will have to be considered by the competent authority while examining the correctness or otherwise of the reasoning adopted by the accused /Tahsildar in rejecting the claim of the complainants subsequent to the remand made by the Assistant Commissioner.
That apart, at this juncture, we have also noticed the order dated 07.10.2009 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Bangalore North Sub-division in No. R.A. BNA 466/2008-09 as at Ex. D12. The said order is passed in an appeal filed by the first complainant u/s 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act questioning the orders dated 07.04.2006 and 09.10.2007 passed by the accused/Tahsildar whereby the appellate authority has upheld the order passed by the accused/Tahsildar. The second complainant has also instituted a similar appeal as seen from the document at Ex.D13. Even with regard to the same, we have noticed the said document not with reference to the correctness or otherwise of the order in appeal but to satisfy ourselves that the order passed by the accused/Tahsildar cannot be considered as one without basis or contrary to the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner while remanding the matter regarding which a grievance is attempted to be made out in these proceedings. Even assuming for a moment that the ultimate finding of the accused/Tahsildar after referring to the contention relating to grant is erroneous, the complainants would have to exhaust their remedy as provided in law and the present contempt petition would not be the answer.
Therefore, on appreciation of the material on record, we are of the view that the direction in the writ petition was to consider and dispose of the matter in accordance with law if the request of the complainants had not already been considered. Since the accused /Tahsildar had disposed of the matter even prior to the direction issued by this Court, the question of disobedience would not arise. Further, even though the subsequent order dated 09.10.2007 was passed after filing of the contempt petition, the same was with a view to indicate further substantial compliance. As such there is no willful disobedience as alleged by the complainants.
In view of the aforesaid, the contempt petition is rejected and the accused stands discharged. No costs.