Judgment :- 1. This contempt petition has its origin in a common award dated 7.4.1999 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Almatti, in respect of a good number of lands acquired pursuant to a notification dated 3.10.1996, issued under Section 4(1) of The Land Acquisition Act. 2. The main award, though was a consent award and the matter should have come to an end with that, it still kept a window open to the land owners as, the structures/sheds, permanent or temporary, located on the lands were not valued for the purpose of awarding compensation, but that was deferred to be done in a supplemental award after receiving necessary inputs relating to the nature of the structures, age, durable or temporary, etc. 3. It appears that a supplemental award in respect of the said structures was in fact passed on 16.7.1999 including the so-called structures standing on the lands, located in Survey Nos.275/2A and 279/1A. It appears insofar as these two survey numbers are concerned and also in respect of about 100 other survey numbers, no compensation was awarded for the so-called structures/sheds, located on these lands, as the Land Acquisition Officer found that they were not worthy of being called either as a structure, or of any durable construction but only temporary thatches, and not even worthy of evaluation, and therefore, had indicated that no compensation was payable. 4. Copies of the supplemental award though passed in July 1999, were, it appears, not at all forwarded to land owners by the then Special Land Acquisition Officer, one by name Mr. Mohamed Salauddin, KAS, Upper Krishna Project, but conveniently kept in the file, may be, for the reason that it was a consent award. 5. Perhaps this would have been so, but for the fact that we notice even from the supplemental award that while a number of persons, 21 in number, who got some compensation in respect of the structures which were located on their lands were consenting parties to the award, there were a good number of others, around a hundred in number, in whose favour no additional compensation was awarded, were not even shown to be present nor consented for rejection of their claims for payment of compensation regarding structures. 6. 6. Therefore, it was the duty of the LAO to have communicated the fact of passing of the award to all such persons, who perhaps, if they had any grouse or grievance, could have pursued other remedies. 7. It is in fact a statutory duty cast of the Land Acquisition Officer to issue notice of award to the land owners in terms of Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. It is not known as to whether or not all such 100 persons came to know about the rejection of their claim for compensation for the structures. However, the present complainants approached this Court in WP.No.5933/07 seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to pass supplemental award in respect of structures alleging that though in the initial award dated 7/4/1999 determination of compensation regarding structures were deferred, for more than 8 years, no further award has been passed. 9. Conveniently for the writ petitioner, the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court with a direction to the respondents to pass a supplemental award, within a time frame of six months. It is on the complaint that this direction was not obeyed, the present contempt petition is filed. 10. We have heard this matter earlier and found that no case had been made out for taking action against the accused/respondents in contempt jurisdiction, and the matter should have come to an end on 23.11.2009, but for certain developments on that day and more so, further development on 26.11.2009 which are all reflected in our order dated 26.11.2009 reading as under: “DVSKJ & KNKJ: 26.11.2009 This Contempt petition should have come to an end on 23.11.2009, when we dictated a detailed order, indicating that no case of contempt was made out against the respondent/accused. But we, nevertheless, were not convinced as to the bona fides of the Complainants in either prosecuting the Contempt Petition or the writ proceedings in W.P.No.5933/2007 (LA-RES), the order in which had given cause for the present Contempt Petition and therefore we had directed the learned AGA to secure the original records relating to passing of the supplementary award and directed the matter to be listed today at 2.30 p.m. and accordingly, in terms of the following order, the matter is re-listed to to-day.” 2) Order dated 23.11.2009, reads as follows: “DVSKJ/KNKJ: 23.11.2009 Contempt petition by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.5933/2007 (LA-RES) complaining that the following order of the learned Single Judge of this Court is not obeyed:- “4) This petition is filed seeking writ or mandamus directing the second respondent to pass an award in respect of the structures on the acquired land. 5) Apparently, the award is passed in the year 1999. In all fitness of things, the Land acquisition Officer ought to have secured the information regarding the valuation of the structures and passed a supplementary award. That has not been done. Hence a mandamus is required to be issued to the second respondent. 6) Writ Petition stands disposed of. The second respondent is directed to pass supplementary award within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.” 2) The writ petition, it appears was disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage itself, by directing the learned Government Advocate to take notice and it is not even clear as to whether any of the respondents had been served before the Government Advocate appeared for them and had been instructed. 3) Be that as it may, the Registry noticed that the Complainants had not complied with the requirements of convincing the registry that the petition was tenable as it appears, the petition had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and when the matter had come up for orders before this Court on this aspect, learned Counsel for the Complainants submitted that the cause of action is a recurring one and therefore, it cannot be said that the petition is out of time. 4) This Court keeping open the question on the delay aspect, had issued notice to the respondent-accused on 7.10.2009. 4) This Court keeping open the question on the delay aspect, had issued notice to the respondent-accused on 7.10.2009. On 12.11.2009, the matter was adjourned to next week and when the matter was re-listed on 19.11.2009 at the request of Sri Sangamesh Biradar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants, the matter was directed to be listed again today. 5) Sri S S Kumman, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/accused, seeks to place before the Court, the counter affidavit sworn to by one C D Emmanuel, working as Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Almatti, Bijapur District, indicating, interalia that the complaint in the contempt petition as well as the relief sought for in the writ petition are virtually on imaginary premise that there was no occasion either for the writ petition or for the present Complaint, as the initial award dated 7.4.1999, awarding compensation in respect of the lands including the lands of the Complainants, had been supplemented by another award dated 16.7.1999, copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘R1’ to the affidavit, which is a supplemental award in respect of structures, which indicates that in so far as the Complainants, whose lands were located in Sy.No.275/2A and 279/1A of Hangaragi Village, Taluk & district Bijapur are concerned, no additional compensation was awarded in respect of sheds located therein, as on physical verification, it was found that the sheds were without foundation and were not worthy of any valuation and therefore, their existence had been ignored for the purpose of computing additional compensation payable to the land owners. 6) In the wake of the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and production of the supplementary award dated 16.7.1999, in fact nothing survives for examination in the present contempt petition. However, Sri Ashok R Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants submits that the Complainants have never received copy of this award and therefore, in ignorance had approached this Court for the relief not only in the writ petition, but also filed this contempt petition for non compliance of the order passed in the writ petition and that the respondent/accused had never apprised the Complainants about passing of the supplementary award dated 16.7.1999 and that too rejecting the claim of the Complainants for additional compensation in respect of the sheds located in the two survey numbers. 7) Sri S S Kumman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/accused submits that the initial award itself was a consent award, therefore, to the knowledge of the parties, and so also the supplementary award dated 16.7.1999 and therefore, it is not open to the Complainants to plead lack of knowledge of the supplementary award. He further submits that the whole proceedings are not justified and there is no cause for taking any action against the respondent/accused in contempt petition and prays for dropping of the proceedings. 8) While the contempt petition may not be tenable in law as there is a delay since this contempt petition has been filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to get over this Sri Ashok R Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants, drew our attention to Article 215 of the Constitution of India and also relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in CCC No.364/1989 dated 27.11.1990 reported in ILR 1990 KAR 4355 in the case of M/s. A V KOWDI & Co. v. R.V. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA. 9) We notice that on facts, the above decision may not have any bearing on the present case, particularly as no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming in the contempt petition and the submission of recurring cause of action is not an acceptable submission, even on merits, the matter does not deserve any examination at all. 10) What is rather doubtful, is whether the complainants/petitioners had any cause of action to present the writ petition at all and now this contempt petition. 11) Therefore, to satisfy ourselves, we direct the learned Government Advocate to place before us, the original records relating to passing of the supplementary award dated 16.7.1999 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Almatti, Bijapur District in No.LAQ:SR:26:95:PART-1,2,4(A), forthwith as that would indicate, whether the Complainants have bonafide prosecuted this contempt petition and so also the writ petition or whether, it is a case of abuse of not only the process of writ jurisdiction, but also of the contempt jurisdiction. 12) For such purpose, list this petition on 26.11.2009 at 2.30 p.m. as requested by Sri S S Kumman, learned Government Advocate.” 3) Sri S S Kumman, learned AGA has placed before us two files, said to be the original records, in terms of our order. 12) For such purpose, list this petition on 26.11.2009 at 2.30 p.m. as requested by Sri S S Kumman, learned Government Advocate.” 3) Sri S S Kumman, learned AGA has placed before us two files, said to be the original records, in terms of our order. Even a cursory glance at these two files containing loose leaves of xerox copies of the supplementary award etc in file No.LAW/SR-26/95-96 and another file No.LAQ/SR-26/95-96 relating to Hangaragi village in Sy.No.175/2A and 277/1+A and built up in the context of W.P.No.5933/2007 (LA-RES) and C.C.No.1319/2007 is nothing but a file containing the correspondences that has taken place between the respondent and the Government Advocate and others after the contempt petition was filed and pursuant to the writ petition etc. 4) Neither file is a original file nor relating to the subject matter with reference to which we had directed the learned AGA to secure and place the records. 5) We are surprised nay shocked to see that the learned AGA even without understanding the responsibility of placing requisite records particularly original records in terms of our order, has tried to pass on some records, which were brought by the respondent/accused one C.D. Emmanuel, working as Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Almatti, Bijapur District, who has brought the file to make a pretence of the fulfillment of directions issued in our order dated 23.11.2009. 6) We express our utmost displeasure, in fact annoyance, at the way the learned AGA has tried to pass on the files containing some loose leaflets and the correspondences as the original records, which were called for as per the order dated 23.11.2009. We expect better assistance both from the learned AGA and at any rate from the respondent/accused, who is facing serious contempt proceedings before this court, to act in a more responsible and reasonable manner. 7) However, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent for the reason, perhaps a copy of the order passed by us on 23.11.2009 was not made available to him and as submitted by Sri S S Kumman, Learned AGA they were acting as per the communication written by the learned AGA incorporating the gist of the order in the letter. 8) For our satisfaction, we requested Learned AGA to show us the letter written to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 8) For our satisfaction, we requested Learned AGA to show us the letter written to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. A perusal of the copy of the letter dated 23.11.2009 makes it clear that the learned AGA had sufficiently indicated what record should be brought before the Court and there could not have been any confusion, in the minds of the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e., Mr. C D Emmanuel, present before the Court. 9) What was placed before the Court in the two files referred to above, were definitely not the records called for. We find that the Land Acquisition Officer has brought many more files/original records kept in a bag with his FDA, by name T.M. Chopadar, who is conveniently kept out of the Court Hall and called him inside the Court Hall, when we expressed our displeasure to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in placing before us, something which was not the original records and trying to pass it off as the original records. 10) Learned AGA submits that he was ignorant of such files having brought to the court hall and what had been placed in his hands were only two files, which are referred to above. This conduct of the Special Land Acquisition Officer not only fortifies the suspicion that we had expressed in our order dated 23.11.2009 about the bonafides or lack of bonafides on the part of the Complainants, but also gives us an impression that the official was trying to protect some erring official or at any rate not keen to place the original records before this Court either to cover up a possible lapses on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer, who had passed the supplementary award, copy of which, as claimed by the Complainants/writ petitioners, was never communicated or it had not been communicated, then, but not placing the record before the Court can give an impression to the court that the supplemental award had never been passed, as claimed in the writ petition. 11) In either situation, there is a clear, deliberate attempt on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to suppress material from our scrutiny and withhold records from being produced before the Court inspite of a positive direction to do so. 11) In either situation, there is a clear, deliberate attempt on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to suppress material from our scrutiny and withhold records from being produced before the Court inspite of a positive direction to do so. 12) Whether or not the respondent had committed contempt as alleged in the complaint, it is obvious for us now that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has infact now indulged in act of contemptuous conduct in trying to mislead this Court by placing irrelevant files, that too containing xerox copies and the correspondent relating to writ petition and contempt petition between the learned AGA and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as original records, that have been called for. This constitutes ex-facie contempt committed in our presence during hearing being an attempt to misrepresent/mislead this Court. 13) We have come to know of these facts after we made further query with the Special Land Acquisition Officer. This is a clear case of a situation attracting Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the Special land Acquisition Officer has committed contempt in our presence during the hearing of the case and has rendered himself liable to be detained in custody. 14) However, keeping aside for the present, the issue of taking such action as is warranted in terms of Section 14 and section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in view of the request made by Sri S S Kumman, learned AGA, we direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer to appear before this Court on 2.12.2009 and as requested by the Land Acquisition Officer himself and as suggested by Sri S S Kumman, learned AGA not only for production of the requisite original records particularly containing the supplementary award passed in respect of land to Sy.No.275/2A and 279/1+A, but also to come up with explanation or response to the proposal to punish him for committing ex-facie contempt before this Court by producing irrelevant records and trying to pass off them as original records called for by this Court. 15) The accused person is specifically warned not to come up with a plea or alibi or an excuse that the required records are missing or not traceable as we have found from our past experience that now it is a trend amongst the Government officials to avoid placing before the Court the records called for, if it is realised, it can expose their misdeeds or follies. 16) Furnish a copy of this order to the learned AGA as well as to the accused persons to answer and to file his possible reply by 2.12.2009. List this matter on 2.12.2009.” It is because of the most irresponsible, callous attitude of the present accused/respondent, Sri C.D. Emmanuel, in either trying to deliberately mislead this court by producing some irrelevant papers as original records relating to the case, or may be due to his ignorance or carelessness, though has long experience of serving this department for the past 32 years and as such he is undoubtedly, a seasoned man, this contempt proceeding is kept alive. Though ,we could have proceeded to pass orders on the basis and for the manner of conduct exhibited by him before this court, we thought it fit to give him an opportunity to explain. Therefore, the matter was taken up yesterday and is listed again today. 11. The accused/respondent has filed an affidavit which though does not fully convince us about his bona fides, we overlook it and accept the unconditional apology tendered by him in the concluding portion of the affidavit, admitting his lapse. 12. With the acceptance of this apology, this contempt petition stands closed. However, we are constrained to observe that the irresponsible conduct on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer who passed the supplemental award dated 16.7.1999 in virtually throwing open the doors for the complainants to contend that they were not aware of it, has to be necessarily inquired into in a proper manner if it is found that the officer has in fact done/taken any action knowingly, which can otherwise also affect the interest of the State, and we direct the State Government to take commensurate action against the then Special Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with law. 13. 13. We are not sure whether or not the complainants were aware of this development or in spite of knowing it, they have taken a chance both in filing the writ petition and now filing this contempt petition. As we are not sure of either position, if any further development takes place in the context of the supplemental award in other jurisdictions, it is for the concerned forum to examine it independently. 14. We drop this contempt proceeding, with the observation that the State Government shall take necessary action against the erring Special Land Acquisition Officer who was responsible for passing the supplemental award, but did not bother to issue notice of the same to all concerned, as per Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act. The Government shall necessarily take such action as otherwise, if such officers go scot-free, mistakes will only be repeated, adding to multiplicity of cases which certainly has to be avoided.