CCC/694/2025 of MR N NARAYANASWAMY Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 August 2026

ORDER

DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED IN WP NO.32031/2024 (KLR-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA appearing for the accused.

2. The instant complaint is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 20.12.2024, passed in

HC-KAR

Writ Petition No.32031/2024. The order dated 20.12.2024 reads as follows: “ORAL ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus to the respondent No.3 to consider recommendation / report dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure-'H') sent by respondent No.4.

2. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the recommendation made by the respondent No.4 as per Annexure-H in accordance with law at the earliest, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

3. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.”

3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused, the Assistant Commissioner has not correctly considered the recommendations made by the Tahsildar. It is noted that only the Assistant Commissioner is made as party personally named / accused in this contempt petition.

4. The learned AGA has referred to the compliance affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Sri.Sudendra G.N., S/o.

HC-KAR

Narayana Swamy. It has been stated in the affidavit that he has been appointed as the Litigation Conducting Officer on behalf of the respondents, vide the Government Order dated 18.08.2025. In paragraph No.6 of the compliance affidavit, it is stated as follows: “6. I state that subsequent to the order dated 20.12.2024, the Office of Tahsildar considered the representation dated 06.03.2022 submitted by the Petitioner and verified the documents available with its office and made a recommendation to the office of Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub Division stating that the grantee's name appears for the first time in the Pahani for the year 1981-1982 without any basis and continued up to 2002-2003. It was also further recommended that there is no entry before the said period and there is no explanation as to and say how the name of the grantees originated in the RTC/Pahani and also stated that after thorough search in the darkast records of the office, no grant documents were found and there is no darkast transaction register to match with the pahani which is alleged to have been entered in the name of the original grantee and further stated that there were no supporting entries in the IL and RR registers and also further stated that the name of the grantee did not contain the name of the grantee details or M.R. number and sought for further action to register a

HC-KAR

case under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The copy of the final recommendation dated 19.11.2024 addressed to the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division by the Office of Tahsildar, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R1.”

5. The learned AGA has submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division passed an order dated 04.07.2025, accepting the final recommendation made by the office of the Tahsildar, Srinivasapura Taluk and ordered the cancellation of the name of Venkatappa at Hotteppa, S/o.Narayanappa and restoration of the land to its original title.

6. It has been stated that during pendency of a case registered against the complainant by the Assistant Commissioner in RA No.882/2024, the petitioner chose to file the present contempt petition on 12.06.2025, without awaiting the orders to be passed by the office of the Assistant Commissioner.

HC-KAR

7. It is further stated that against the order dated 04.07.2025, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in Writ petition No.25178/2025. By an order dated 17.09.2025, the learned Single Judge of this Court has set-aside the Order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

8. It is therefore contented that, as far as the direction made by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.12.2024, the same has been complied with.

9. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that it is during pendency of the instant contempt case that the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25178/2025, setting aside the order dated 04.07.2025. It is stated that he may be permitted to affirm non-compliance of the order dated 17.09.2025, passed in the subsequent writ petition, through this contempt petition.

HC-KAR

10. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted. However, it goes without saying that the accused is bound to comply with the order of the writ Court dated 17.09.2025.

11. At this stage, the learned AGA files a memo in the Court, informing that the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar, passed an amendment order on 02.03.2026, in Case No.Sa.Ka/RRT(Sri)/CR/209/2022-23. It is stated that the order was officially pushed to the Bhoomi Software System on 25.03.2026 for implementation. However, reference has been made to a restriction in the Bhoomi Software System, which requires a 15-day notice period. It is further stated that the Tahsildar had sought 20 working days, for the software lock to be released and for the complainant's name to be officially indexed in the RTC. The communication dated 31.03.2026, made by the office of the Tahsildar, Srinivasapura taluk, Srinivasapura is taken on record.

HC-KAR

12. This contempt case is therefore consigned.

Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8