AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shylendra Kumar, J.—Of late contempt petitions it appears, are filed As devise to blackmail public authorities to pass orders, which otherwise than could not have passed or not enabled in law to pass.
Under the threat of contempt jurisdiction and when arrayed as accused persons, just to save their skin, oblige these public authorities the complainants by passing any order just to get out of the difficult situations''.
We notice that in this process of public authorities obliging complainants by passing benevolent orders, public properties have been snatched away by private individuals may be due to the pressure on the public authorities or even otherwise, using the facility of the writ jurisdiction rather by misusing or abusing, and people who may have no right in respect of a revenue land, even a tank or such other public properties, seek to gel possessory rights, ownership rights etc., under the orders of the Court passed in writ jurisdiction and contempt jurisdiction.
The Courts are meant for providing relief to the citizens who are affected in respect of their rights by the illegal or high handed action of the authorities and even a private person. The Courts do not have the jurisdiction to pass orders to create rights and to pass an order either on sympathetic grounds or on equitable grounds, is afortion so in respect of public properties.
In the instant case, in the contempt petition, we find that in terms of the following order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 41383-385/201 on 8.11.2011, the present contempt petition:
Heard. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that respondent No.2 - The Deputy Commissioner would consider in accordance with law, the application dated 20.04.2010 at Annexured-H within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The submission is placed on record. On the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct Respondent No. 3- namely, the Tahasildar, Nelamangala Taluk, Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District to maintain status-quo in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.151/1A and 1C measuring a acre 20 guntas referred to in the aforesaid application till the disposal of the application by respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner. Ordered accordingly,. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The petitioners to furnish a certified copy of this order to respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with a copy of the aforesaid application at Annexure-H for taking action in the matter in accordance with law.
and on the complaint that some of the respondents who arc required to give effect to this order have not done so, therefore required to be punished in the contempt jurisdiction, so this contempt petition.
We have heard Sri.K.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the complainants who submits that the subject matter relates to an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.151/1A and 1C which in all measures according to the complainants 1 acres 20 guntas and in respect of certain orders said to have been passed by the Joint Director of Land Records, who as submitted at the Bar has cancelled the earlier proceedings of the Joint Director of Land Records, wherein the Joint Director of Land Records reclassified an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas of land which was originally classified as A karab into B karab land and the Joint Director of Land Records had reversed this order in exercise of his suo-moto revisional jurisdiction provision under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Submission of Sri.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the complainants is that the subject matter of an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land along with rest of the lands in Sy.No.151/1A and 1C of Nelamangala Village had in fact been in the interregnum permitted for non-agricultural use by an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of the District and therefore the petitioners complainants had acquired rights and the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records had affected such right of the petitioners and therefore the writ petition had been filed and the learned single Judge having issued orders as extracted above and the representations given to the State Government to either cancel or modify the order of Joint Director of Land Records having not been done so far, that has given cause for presenting the contempt petition before this Court.
We find the whole developments rather murky and in a shabby manner particularly the manner in which the writ petitioners complainants are laying claim to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of Karab land which even as admitted by the complainants is a karab land and whether A-Karab and B-karab lands had never been granted on behalf of the petitioners.
Assuming that the petitioners were in the enjoyment and wanted some further enjoyment due to their such rights, it is open to them to have such rights protected in accordance with law, but we do not find any action or inaction on the part of the accused persons which is one attracting the contempt jurisdiction of the Court for further actions, Therefore, the contempt petitions are dismissed.