Karnataka High Court
CCC/574/2022 of SRI R MAREGOWDA Vs SRI K NARASIMHAMURTHY on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010274972022 NC: 2026:KHC:53054-DB CCC No. 574 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 574 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 574 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. R MAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE M RAMAIAH
RESIDING AT NO.214, MANDHARA,
MEENAKUNTE HOSUR, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
…COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. M.N.UMESH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. NARASIMHA PRASAD.S.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI K NARASIMHAMURTHY
THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE-560 106.
2.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIAKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
3.
SRI.JAGADEESHA.G, IAS
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009.
4.
SRI.PRAMOD PATIL,
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
5.
MANJUNATH.A.S
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 106.
6.
SUJAY KUMAR,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI. KIRAN V RON, AAG A/W
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR A1 TO A6)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO PUNISH THE RESPONDENT FOR HAVING
WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON’BLE
COURT
IN
WP
NO.20722/2021
DATED
24.01.2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘FRAMING OF
CHARGES’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.20722/2021 (KLR-RES).
2. The Writ Court vide order in question had disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the complainant/petitioner to file an application online seeking phodi-durasthi in respect of Sy.No.39 (39/P-10) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas situated at Meenkunte Village, Jala-2 Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru. The concerned authority was directed to take action as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date when the application would be filed by the petitioner.
HC-KAR
3. This order of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of the Writ Appeal No.894/2022 filed by the State. Said Writ Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 23rd September 2024. Paragraphs-3 to 5 of the said order passed by the Division Bench would read as follows: “3. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate relies on the proviso Section 94-A(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964, in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs No.6 and 7 of the judgment, we are of the opinion that the question whether the land of the respondent was within the objectionable distance as per the said proviso at the relevant time is also a matter which is to be considered by the competent authority.
4. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the judgment does not require any interference except to clarify that the question of distance of the property in question from the limits of the Bengaluru City Corporation at the relevant time can also be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law while considering the application submitted by the respondent as directed by the learned Single Judge.
5. The appellant shall take necessary steps to consider and pass orders as directed by the learned Single Judge within a period of two months from today. Accordingly, writ appeal is disposed of.”
HC-KAR
4. An affidavit of compliance dated 10.09.2006 has been filed by Sri.Syed Kaleemulla, Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru, wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of the liberty granted by the order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 894 of 2022, the distance of the land in Survey No.39 has been measured and it has been said that the distance is only 17.4 km., from the then BMP/BCC limits, which is less than 18 km., as has been provided under Rule of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation of Lands) Rules, 1970 and therefore, the grant has been cancelled.
5. In respect of similarly situated 39 persons of the said village, the notices have been issued to them and their grants would also be cancelled as these lands are situated in less than 18 kilometers.
HC-KAR
6. In view of the aforesaid facts stated, we close this contempt petition with liberty to the complainant to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings, if he is aggrieved by the cancellation of his grant. The Contempt notice sands discharged.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE
KNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32