Judgment :- Shylendra Kumar, J This is a strange case of the complainant having approached this Court invoking Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act after having tasted success in writ jurisdiction in terms of the order dated 19.03.2008 in Writ Petition No.4475/2008. The Learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition after noticing as under: “4. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the husband of the petitioner had filed an application before the Land Tribunal Sedam. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 20.05.1978 declared that the husband of the petitioner is holding the land in excess to an extent of 94 acres 34 guntas. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner surrendered the lands bearing Sy.Nos.43 measuring 24 acres 35 guntas, Sy.No.140 measuring 21 acres 9 guntas, Sy.No.98 measuring 26 acres 24 guntas and Sy.No.99 measuring 26 acres 32 guntas, in total 99 acres 20 guntas. The petitioner instead of surrendering 94 acres 34 guntas, has surrendered 99 acres 20 guntas of land i.e. excess land to an extent of 4 acres 26 guntas. 5. On a representation given by the petitioner to release the excess land in her favour, the Tahsildar issued an endorsement stating that if there is any excess land, that can be returned to the petitioner after the survey being conducted. Annexure-A speaks to the fact that after verification, the Tahsildar has ordered to take back the excess land after surveying the land. 6. In view of the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is said to be an excess land surrendered than what was ordered to be Surrendered to the Government. According to the petitioner, 4 acres 26 guntas is said to have been surrendered in excess, for which the petitioner is entitled to take back after surveying the said land by the Survey Authorities, as per the order of the Tahsildar. Pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar, Sedam at Annexure-A, it is for the respondent-authorities to carry out the directions meticulously. The Assistant Director to Survey Settlement is directed to survey the land, in accordance with law at the earliest. 7. Accordingly the petition is allowed.” 2. Pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar, Sedam at Annexure-A, it is for the respondent-authorities to carry out the directions meticulously. The Assistant Director to Survey Settlement is directed to survey the land, in accordance with law at the earliest. 7. Accordingly the petition is allowed.” 2. It is hereafter the contempt petition was filed on 24.02.2009 in CCC No.1331/2009 alleging that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions issued in the writ petition and there has been willful disobedience of the order made in W.P.No.4475/2008. The material averments of the contempt petition are as under: “5. That, the respondent authorities having received the applications along with the copy of the order in W.P.No.4475/2008 failed to carry out survey work and further failed to release the excess land which has been illegally taken from the complainant. The respondent authorities intentionally disobeyed to carryout the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, thereby committed contempt of Court.” 3. Thereafter the matter had come up before this Court. The order sheet of the petition reads as follows: VGGJ & LNSJ 16.7.2009: List the matter on Monday i.e. on 20.7.2009. VGGJ & LNSJ 20.7.2009: At the request of the Learned Government Advocate List this matter on 22.7.2009. VGGJ & LNSJ 22.7.2009: At the request of the Learned Govt. Advocate, adjourned to next week finally, to report complaint of the order complained of or to get the first respondent present before this Court to hear him before framing charge. HGRJ & LNSJ 30.7.2009: The Tahsildar, Sedam is present in Court today. The Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that respondents would comply with the order within three weeks. List on 21.08.2009 for reporting compliance. NKPJ/RVMJ 21.8.2009: Respondent No.1 – accused is present before the Court. List this matter next week at the request of the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent-accused, to enable him to comply with the order dated 30.7.09 subject to condition that the 1st respondent shall pay the cost of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant forthwith through demand draft and file a memo along with the acknowlegement for having paid Rs.5,000/-cost from his personal fun and not from the Government Department, on or before the next date of hearing. List on 28/8/2009. NKPJ & RVMJ 28.8.2009: Re-list this matter on 31.08.09 at the request of Learned Govt. List on 28/8/2009. NKPJ & RVMJ 28.8.2009: Re-list this matter on 31.08.09 at the request of Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the accused for compliance of the order dated 21.08.2009. NKPJ/RVMJ 31.8.2009: Learned Government Advocate has filed a memo dated 31.8.2009 stating that, the order dated 21.8.2009 has been partly complied with by handing over a sum of Rs.5,000/-through a Demand Draft dated 26.8.2009 bearing No.780063 drawn in favour of State of Hyderabad Branch. The same has been duly acknowledged by the complainant on 28.8.2009. The memo is placed on record. Post this matter for reporting compliance on 9.9.2009. NKPJ & RVMJ 09.9.2009: List this matter next week at the request of the Counsel for the complainant on the ground that he has received copy of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent today and to enable him to go through the same and make his submissions. KLMJ/AKJ 30.10.2009: None appears. Adjourned to next week. KLMJ/AKJ 10.11.2009: Since the Government Advocate is unable to convince the Court that the directions issued in W.P.No.4475/08 dated 19.3.2008 is complied with, we have no other option than to direct the Tahsildar Sedam to appear before us in terms of the order of this Court dated 22.07.2009. Accordingly, the matter is listed to 16.11.2009 to hear before charge. The Tahasildar, Sedam shall be present before the Court on that day. 4. The matter is listed today to frame charges against respondents-accused. The Tahsildar, Sedam was directed to be present before the Court. Though Sri. G.G. Chagashetti, Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the matter is listed today to frame charge against the respondents-accused, the Registry has listed the matter for compliance of certain office objections. 5. Submission of Sri. G.G. Chagashetti, Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant is that the office objections had been raised at the initial stage of presentation of the contempt petition and in view of the direction by this Court to the Tahasildar who is present before this Court, it has lost its significance and should be overlooked. 6. 5. Submission of Sri. G.G. Chagashetti, Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant is that the office objections had been raised at the initial stage of presentation of the contempt petition and in view of the direction by this Court to the Tahasildar who is present before this Court, it has lost its significance and should be overlooked. 6. While it is not clear as to whether the complainant had complied with the office objections or not, the matter is not listed to frame charges against the respondents-accused which in contempt jurisdiction is a very important stage and framing of charges would arise only if on examination of complaint this Court finds primafacie material to frame charges against respondents and for such purpose the presence of respondents in the capacity of accused is necessary to answer the charges if any framed against the accused. 7. We find from the order sheet, no notice of contempt petition had ever been issued to the respondents. Even then, on 22.07.2009 this Court had directed the Tahasildar to be present before the Court. On 30.07.2009 the Tahasildar, Sedam had appeared before this Court. The Learned Government Advocate for the respondents-accused undertook to comply with the order within three weeks. Therefore, the matter was listed on 21.08.2009 for reporting the compliance. On 21.08.2009 the compliance was not reported. Therefore, this Court levied cost of Rs.5,000/-on the Tahasildar, Sedam to be paid from his personal funds. In fact this order was compiled by the Tahasildar on 31.08.2009 on which date the Tahasildar paid to complainant Rs.5,000/-as cost by a Demand Draft. 8. We find the entire proceedings to be rather strange, preplexing and definitely not in consonance with any legal provisions, leave alone the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the High Court of Karnataka Contempt of Courts Proceedings Rules, 1981 (for short Rules). 9. Rule 6 of the Rules is as under: “6. (1) Notice to the person charged shall be in Form I. The person charged shall, unless otherwise ordered, appear in person before the Court as directed on the date fixed for hearing of the proceedings, and shall continue to remain present during hearing till the proceeding is finally disposed of by order of the Court. (2) When action is instituted on petition, a copy of the petition along with the annexure and affidavits shall be served upon the person charged.” 10. (2) When action is instituted on petition, a copy of the petition along with the annexure and affidavits shall be served upon the person charged.” 10. After the Court takes cognizance of the petition in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules, notice of the petition has to be issued to the respondents-accused and so far such awareness has not been exhibited by this Court, in terms of the statutory provisions. 11. Notwithstanding the above lacuna and irrespective of what has happened so far, at this stage of the contempt proceedings, we have examined the contempt petition and the order on the basis of which the present contempt proceedings have been intiated. 12. The sum and substance of the case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner’s husband had filed certain declaration under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 before the Land Tribunal indicating excess of land held by him. It appears the Land Tribunal had determined the excess land in an extent of 129 acres 37 guntas. It appears that it was scaled down to 99 acres 9 guntas as per order 27.12.1977. Though none of these orders are forthcoming, we have assumed this on the basis of Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit dated 28.08.2009 filed by Mr. Rajendra incharge Tahasildar of Sedam Taluka. In Para-9 of Annexure R-1 there is reference to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, which reads as under: “The Land Tribunal Sedam, has passed an order on 27.12.1977 declaring an area of 99 acres 0.9 guntas as surplus. And accepting the surrender or land by this the earlier order wherein an extent of 129 acres 37 gunta was declared as surplus land revised. The signature of the declarant has been obtained on this order. Hence it is not correct to say the declarant, that order or the Tribunal accepting his surrender of lands has not fear communicated to him. But the declarant himself had surrendered the 100 acre 10 gunda. The details of sy. Nos surrendered are as under Sy.No. Acre Gunta 43 24 37 140 21 09 98 26 12 99 25 17 112 3 15 100 = 10 13. 13. But the declarant himself had surrendered the 100 acre 10 gunda. The details of sy. Nos surrendered are as under Sy.No. Acre Gunta 43 24 37 140 21 09 98 26 12 99 25 17 112 3 15 100 = 10 13. 13. It is thereafter that the present complainant-writ petitioner who is the wife of the original declarant that a representation had been given to the authorities to point out that petitioner’s husband by mistake, had surrendered an excess extent of 4 acres 26 guntas, which version we have to infer as there is a reference to representation dated 20.12.2004 with regard to which the Tahasildar, Sedam had responded by his communication dated 04.01.2005 which has been produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. A perusal of the contents of Annexure-A would indicate that the representation and the response are only in the context of taking measurement of the excess land surrendered and giving the details of the survey numbers and the circumstances under which an extent of 4 acres 26 guntas is remaining with the State after the surrendered land to an extent of 99 acres 20 guntas was distributed and the petitioner has been apprised that if factually such excess land is still remaining without being distributed, the petitioner could get it surveyed. 14. Contents of Annexure-A does not indicate that the husband of the petitioner had surrendered the land to an extent of 4 acres 25 guntas over and above the determination as had been done by the Tribunal. On the other hand if at all if there is any excess, in terms of the contents of Para-9 of order sheet, as stated supra, it works out to an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta. This is an event that had taken place in the year 1977 or 1978. But the representation is dated 20.12.2004. The contents of representation do not indicate the order of determination made by the Land Tribunal or any other relevant proceedings. The writ petition was filed on the premise that the petitioner mistook this remaining extent of 4 acres 26 guntas which had not been distributed, as the land surrendered by her husband over and above the excess land determined by the Tribunal. Therefore the petitioner was entitled to reclaim the mistakenly surrendered excess extent of land. Unfortunately there was no contest on the part of the respondent-State. 15. Therefore the petitioner was entitled to reclaim the mistakenly surrendered excess extent of land. Unfortunately there was no contest on the part of the respondent-State. 15. After considering stages of instant proceedings it appears that the proceedings had not gone beyond the preliminary hearing stage. This Court had not taken cognizance of petition and also notice of the petition had not been issued to the respondents-accused, nonetheless the direction issued by this Court for compliance of the order made in W.P.4475/2008 was never objected by the State. On the other hand the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State has very generously and magnanimously had conceded the duty of respondents to comply with the directions. 16. Be that as it may, we do not find anything on record to indicate that a possible order which was required to be compiled by respondents has been deliberately disregarded or disobeyed by the respondents warranting taking cognizance of the contempt petition. 17. It is by a series of assumptions and presumptions the matter has now reached the stage where contempt charges are sought to be pressed against the first respondent. 18. We find from the order sheet that in between, the Tahasildar had also been mulcted with costs of Rs.5,000/-which in fact was paid to the complainant by the Tahasildar. 19. From what had transpired so far, we find the surrender of the land in excess of determination in the year 1977 or 1978 was sought to be re-opened that too on the premise that the husband of the present petitioner had mistakenly surrendered 4 acres 26 guntas land in excess of what was determined. The records do not support this claim. On the other hand what has been averred in the petition is accepted at its face value, the excess land surrendered over and above the determination is only 1 acre 1 gunta. A claim of this nature sought to be espoused before this Court in writ petition filed in the year 2008, has assumed the form of an enforceable order and delay and laches on the part of petitioner had not come in the way of an order in favour of the writ petitioner. Above all the records relied upon by writ petitioner do not support the case of the writ petitioner. 20. Above all the records relied upon by writ petitioner do not support the case of the writ petitioner. 20. In a situation of this nature, pressing the contempt jurisdiction for action/punishment against the hapless, ignorant Government Officials, in the year 2009, is nothing short of misuse and abuse of the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 21. We do not find a matter of this nature merits further examination in contempt jurisdiction irrespective of the order or direction issued by the Learned Single Judge. We find it rather strange that respondent should have been mulcted with cost of Rs.5,000/-which had already been paid to the complainant as indicated by Sri G. G. Chagashetti, Learned Counsel for the complainant. 22. Though Sri. G.G. Chagashetti, Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently submits that this Court has issued a direction, which the respondent has not compiled with and therefore contempt should necessarily be inferred and action should be taken against respondents for willful disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.4475/2008, we are the least impressed by this submission. 23. The present respondent, Tahasildar is not the one against whom the contempt proceedings were intiated. We do not find a case for exercising contempt jurisdiction. An act of willful disregard of an order can be inferred if an order which should have been complied with by respondents had been deliberately and consciously disregarded. We do not find any such ingredients in the present case. Therefore we are constrained to discharge the respondents and dismiss the contempt petition. 24. We notice the presence of the Tahasildar before the Court today. 25. We levy costs of Rs.10,000/-on the complainant for the misuse of contempt jurisdiction of this Court. It is open to respondents to recover the cost so levied, as arrears of land revenue unless paid by the complainant within four weeks from the date of this order.