Karnataka High Court
CCC/1094/2025 of RATHNAMMA Vs SRI. MUNISH MOUDGIL I.A.S on 21 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010558622025 NC: 2026:KHC:37405-DB CCC No. 1094 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1.
RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2.
PADMA
W/O PARAMESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3.
VIJAYA KUMAR B
S/O VALLUMALAI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
4.
K BALU
S/O KUPPUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
5.
JAYAMMA H.C.
W/O SINGARI GOWDA H.K.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
6.
SHOBHA V
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY N
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
SRIDEVI S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
7.
SUJATHA
W/O MUDDURAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BEHIND SRS
ASHRAYA NAGAR, PEENYA 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 058
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI MUNISH MOUDGIL, I.A.S.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
…ACCUSED
2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
…PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR
PRO FORMA RESPONDENT No.2 & ACCUSED No.1)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT
OF
COURTS
ACT,
PRAYING
TO
TAKE
NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW, SINCE HE HAS FAILED TO OBEY AND IMPLEMENT THE
ORDER DATED 07.04.2025 IN W.P. NO.4748/2025 (KLR-RES) VIDE
ANNEXURE-D
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
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. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The complainants have filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.4748/2025 (KLR-RES). The complainants had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District to pass appropriate orders in terms of the recommendations dated 22.07.2022 in respect of grant of land in favour of the complainants.
2. The complainants had stated that the concerned Tahsildar had recommended that 3 acres and 20 guntas of land comprising in Sy.No.70, Kittanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk be reserved for the purpose of allotting sites to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. The said recommendations had been forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government. However,
HC-KAR
no action was taken on the said recommendation. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to consider the recommendation and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to Baba Saheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Horata Samithi.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate has filed an affidavit affirmed by the Additional Chief Secretary stating that the Department had reviewed the report submitted by the Bangalore Urban District Authorities and the selection of eligible site-less beneficiaries is required to be made by authorities such as Grama Panchayaths, Slum Development Board or the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Ltd., in accordance with the Rules. He submitted that the said recommendation has been made by Tahsildar and not by any of the authorities in accordance with the law.
4. In view of the above, this Court's direction to take a decision on the recommendations has been complied. The complaint is accordingly closed.
HC-KAR
5. We, however clarify that if the complainants are dissatisfied with the said response, they are not precluded from availing substantive remedies, albeit in accordance with law.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1