Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1276 (KAR)

H. S. Sarojamma v. N. Satyanarayana

2013-11-06

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, K.L.MANJUNATH

body2013
ORDER : 1. The contention of the petitioner is that the direction issued by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 3867/2013 dated 12.2.2013 has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents by not constructing the concrete retaining wall. The respondents have filed counter by producing the copy of the order passed in W.A. 2460/2013 dated 24.10.2013, which appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the order of learned single Judge. 2. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order of the writ appeal reads as hereunder:-- 5. However, in order to clarify the situation and avoid further litigation among the parties, it was specifically put to learned counsel Mr. Subramanya R, appearing for the original petitioner, as to whether any direction as prayed in the original petition could be discerned and whether the original petitioner could legally insist upon translating the impugned order into a direction to construct a concrete retaining wall. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the original petitioner maintained complete silence in reply. 6. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, the appeal is not required to be entertained and no further direction or clarification is required to be issued as prayed by the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine, along with the interim applications made therein, with the observation" that the original petitioner shall be at liberty to claim relief, in accordance with law, on proof of any damage to his property and pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 14.06.2012. 3. On perusal of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order passed in writ appeal, direction has been issued in favour of the complainant only to file a civil suit if any damages are caused to his property on account of erosion of soil. 4. In view of the observation made by the Division Bench in the writ appeal, when the complainant counsel was unable to convince the Court with regard to not issuing the direction for construction of concrete retaining wall, it cannot be contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the order of the learned single Judge is wilfully disobeyed. In the circumstances, this contempt petition is dismissed.