Judgment :- 1. This complaint under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 60438 of 2009 complaining that the order dated 25.2.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 60438 of 2009 has not been obeyed by the respondents and on the other hand, disregarded. 2. The complainant claims to be the owner of certain extent of agricultural land located in Sy. No. 244 of Kamalapura Village and that an extent of 4 acres 21 cents in this survey number had come to be acquired for public purpose, namely, for preserving certain monuments excavated by the Archeological Survey of India, in terms of notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, [for short ‘the Act’] in the year 1977. 3. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer had determined compensation payable to the complainant – owner of the land in a sum of Rs. 10,800/- per acre and it appears the complainant was quite content with this compensation and had not pursued the matter by seeking reference under section 18 of the Act. 4. A like land owner whose lands also were acquired under the same notification had approached the civil court seeking enhancement of the compensation under section 18 of the Act and the version of the complainant is that the learned Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.,] Hospet had enhanced the compensation in respect of such person enhancing the rate of compensation per acre from Rs. 10,800/- as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs 96,000/- in LAC No. 148 of 1991 in terms of order dated 8.2.2001. 5. It is therefore as per the version of the complainant an application was filed under section 28-A of the Act on 22.6.2001 before the Land Acquisition Officer praying for like enhancement in respect of land acquired by the State from the complainant also and had enclosed copy of the Judgment and Award passed in the other land acquisition case where the value had come to be enhanced. 6. 6. It is further version of the complainant that the respondents, particularly, the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer who was required to pass orders after holding an inquiry under section 28-A of the Act, having become inactive for good number of years and the complainant though was rest content for as many as eight years by merely corresponding with the Land Acquisition Officer, it appears had in the year 2009 come up with writ petition No. 60438 of 2009 before this court which was disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage with the operative portion of the order reading as under: 5. Accordingly, it is directed that the application filed by the petitioner under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits if the same is filed within the statutory Period[ keeping in mind the observation made above] and dispose of accordingly as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of this order.” 7. Submission of Sri Yadrami, learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had filed a representation dated 7.3.2009 [copy at Annexure –B to the writ petition] before the second respondent – one Nagendrappa the then Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition officer, Hospet, enclosing the copy of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.] Hospet, and though four months outer limit stipulated as per order dated 25.2.2009 had expired by 7.7.2009 and with the respondents not taking any action, the same amounts to deliberate disregard to the directions issued by this court and therefore the writ petitioner has filed this contempt petition presented to this court on 24.8.2009 and as the persons holding office of the Assistant Commissioner were being transferred frequently, the complainant was not able to provide the precise name of the Officer who had occupied the post on and after 7.7.2009 and under such circumstances, four weeks time was granted to ascertain the factual position and place it before the court. 8. 8. On the last occasion, when the matter had come up for further orders before this court, we had noticed a contempt petition of this nature without asserting as to the precise person who has committed contempt and not arraying him by his name is no good for dealing with contemnors and had granted time only for the specific purpose of ascertaining the name. However, yet again request is made for grant of time for four more weeks. 9. We find, in matters of this nature, where writ jurisdiction is invoked in a very lax manner and lose orders are passed in writ jurisdiction granting a writ of mandamus even when petitioners have not made out a case of legal right and dereliction of statutory duties on the part of the respondents, orders of this nature are only flooding us in contempt jurisdiction, particularly, with irresponsible and incompetent bureaucrats ruling the roost in the administration. The way things are going, we feel that this court will be flooded with only contempt petitions and it is high time that some proper check is put on such proliferation of contempt petitions and our jurisdiction is tightened to ensure that, only deserving persons and in justifying circumstances get relief from this court either in writ jurisdiction or in contempt jurisdiction. 10. We find in a matter of this nature, where acquisition was in the year 1977, Award came to be passed in the year 1986, an application under section 28A of the Act is said to have been filed in the year 2001 and eight years thereafter the owner approaches this court invoking writ jurisdiction for issue of mandamus is a matter which on the face of it speak of letharginess, laxity if not deliberate, considerable negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant. We are not enthused to readily exercise our contempt jurisdiction in matters of this nature. 11. We also find that there should be an enquiry on the application under Section 28A of the Act as to whether the applicant who is prosecuting the matter is the very person who was the owner of the land it is not known as to who was the owner of this land in terms of notification issued under section 4 of the Act in the year 1977. 12. 12. On inquiry about this, learned counsel for the complainant fairly submits that while the complainant is not the original owner, but submits that he is one claiming some interest in terms of a Deed of Assignment dated 27.12.2002 said to have been executed by one Siddalingaiah Pompaiah Melemath, son of Pompaiah Malemath, aged about 70 years, Agriculturist, in favour of M Nagaraja Goud – the complainant herein, copy of which is produced as Annexure – E to the writ petition. 13. On perusal of this so called Deed of Assignment, while it does not make any mention of the application under section 28A of the Act, said to have been filed by the original land owner on 22.6.2001 itself, our attention is drawn by Sri Yadrami, learned counsel for the complainant to paragraph-3 of the Deed of Assignment which reads as under: “3. The Assignee has accepted through this Deed of Transfer to receive such enhanced compensation in the event of giving higher compensation. The Assigned would have no claim, whatsoever on the enhanced compensation that would be awarded in the future in LAO. CR./12/76-77 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.244/2 of Kamalapur Town The Assigner or his legal representatives shall have no claim over the enhanced compensation amount. The Assignee is also entitled to produce this document before any authority for claiming benefits under this assignment and also is entitled to produce before LAO and also in all Civil Courts, in proceedings bearing No.LAO/CR/12/76-77 and also the Assignee is entitled to get himself impleaded in the said proceedings.” And submits that this particular clause gives the right in favour of the complainant. 14. When we pointed out to learned counsel for the complainant that an assignment of this nature is not a recognized way of transfer of any right in any property nor even an actionable claim, Sri Yadrami, learned counsel for the complainant would again draw our attention to the power of attorney said to have been executed by the erstwhile owner in favour of the complainant prior to execution of the Deed of Assignment. 15. 15. We notice in this confusing state of affairs that the present complainant is neither the owner nor a legal heir of the original owner and when we wanted to verify as to who was the owner with regard to the notification issued under section 4 of the Act, we find more shocking facts, namely, that the particular piece of land was originally owned by Sri Kotturswamy, Hospet who was the khatedar perhaps and names of one Basavanagowd, H S Malinath figuring as Anubhavadars and in this state of affairs the person who has executed the so called Deed of Assignment was neither the owner nor Anubhavadar of the subject land and persons who do not have any right, title or interest in the land conveniently have come up with all sorts of concocted facts and stories and it is such person who had obtained an order in the writ petition and to compound the same, has further emboldened himself to invoke our contempt jurisdiction in this contempt petition. 16. We are finding more number of cases wherein our contempt jurisdiction is being more and more abused, rather than being invoked by bona fide litigants for proper purposes and in this state of affairs, we are not at all encouraged to exercise our contempt jurisdiction in favour of third parties/intruders like the complainant. 17. Therefore, the contempt petition is dismissed levying exemplary cost quantifying to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the complainant. Cost to be deposited before this court within four weeks from today and the amount to be credited to the account of the High Court Legal Services Authority and to be utilized for deserving litigants coming up with just causes before this court who cannot afford to spend for litigation. 18. Necessary arrangements to be made by the Additional Registrar General for such purpose. If the cost is not deposited within four weeks, it is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the complainant and the Additional Registrar General is hereby directed to take such steps. Contempt Petition is dismissed.