AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—These contempt petitions is by the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 8693-8696 of 2011 who had approached this court in writ jurisdiction complaining that though some of their lands were acquired quite some time back and though certain awards dated 30.5.2008 & 17.4.2008 had been passed in respect of the lands acquired from the petitioners, the award amount is not realized in their Favour.
This court in terms of the order in the said writ petitions dated 29.6.2011 had disposed of the same, recording the submission of learned Government Advocate for the respondents reading as under:
Learned Government Advocate has also filed a memo stating that in view of the fact that the documents are produced by the petitioners and on verifying the records, the compensation would be disbursed to them in accordance with law. The said memo is taken on record.
The petitioners are directed to release the compensation amount to the petitioners in terms of the awards dated 30.5.2008 and 17.4.2008 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order,
With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Complainants are before this court now on the allegation that inspite of such directions by this court, the accused person instead of making good the award amount has been issuing one endorsement or the other only to deprive the payment to the complainants; that the endorsement was issued on 20.8.2011 [copy at Annexure-B] pointing out that subject land was originally a Government kharab land and it had been granted in favour of one G Madaiah, son of Gojje Madaiah and that matter was required to be examined in the background of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act. 1978 and in response, the first complainant Mr. Nagaraj having given a request on 28.8.2011, that was also examined and endorsement dated 13.9.2011 [copy at Annexure-C] has been issued and That such things clearly constitute a positive disregard of the court directions etc.
These contempt petitions have been listed regarding certain defects pointed out by the registry, particularly as in paragraph 9 of the order in the writ petitions that there was no direction to the respondents.
Sri. Lokesh K S, learned counsel for the complainants submits that the directions issued is to the respondents, but due to typographical error, it has been mentioned that petitioners are directed to release the compensation amount.
Be that as it may, we find that the endorsement issued at Annexure-C cannot be characterized as one in contravention of law or for disobeying or disregarding the court order or direction.
It is open to the complainants to work out, their rights and remedies after ascertaining the factual position also and realize the award amount in any other manner known to law. But, we do not propose to keep these contempt petitions pending on board of this court.
These contempt petitions are dismissed.