Karnataka High Court
CCC/924/2026 of SRI K M MUKUNDA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 19 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010507152026 NC: 2026:KHC:51360-DB CCC No. 924 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.924 OF 2026 BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.924 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI.K M MUKUNDA,
S/O LATE MUNIGANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT KENCHAPURA,
DODDABELE POST,
TYAMAGONDLU,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL TALUK-562 123.
2.
SRI. MOHAN N,
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT KENCHAPURA,
DODDABELE POST,
TYAMAGONDLU,
BENGALURU RURAL TALUK-562 123.
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA ROY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
…PROFORMA RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
MALLESHA BEERAPPA POOJAR,
TAHASILDAR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
…ACCUSED
(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G. AGA FOR PROFORMA R1 & A2)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE
COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED AND
PUNISH THEM FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF
THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.575/2026
(KLR-RES) DATED 14.01.2026 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS
CIVIL
CONTEMPT
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
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 JAYANT BANERJI)
This petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 14.01.2026 in W.P.No.575/2026. The order of the writ Court directed the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk to secure the information regarding the entry of the name of the grandfather of the petitioners/complainants in the revenue record and if possible a certified copy of the order said to have been passed by the Land Tribunal. If it is found that such an order was passed by the Land Tribunal and Form 10
HC-KAR
was already issued in favour of the petitioners' grandfather, then the Tahsildar was directed to consider the entry of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, subject to the issuance of notice to all concerned and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to all concerned in accordance with law. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three months.
2. A compliance affidavit was filed on 16.09.2026 by Mallesha Beerappa Poojar, Tahsildar of Nelamangala Taluk. It is stated therein that the applicants failed to produce the necessary documents as directed by this Court. However during the course of the proceedings, both parties jointly presented an application stating that they had compromised regarding the property in dispute and explicitly expressed their desire to withdraw the underlying proceedings/representations. The compromise application is produced along with this affidavit. It is stated that since the applicants failed to substantiate their claim with document produced and subsequently filed a joint compromise application seeking withdrawal of the matter, the underlying proceeding has been accordingly disposed of in
HC-KAR
accordance with law and on the joint request of the parties. An unconditional and unqualified apology is also tendered for the delay caused in complying with the order of this Court.
3. A memo of withdrawal is filed today in Court by learned Counsel for the complainants, which is taken on record. Therein it is stated that in view of the out of Court settlement, the complainants do not want to prosecute the present petition and wish to withdraw the same. A joint affidavit to that effect is also enclosed.
4. In view of the aforesaid, contempt petition is consigned.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE
KSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3