Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1204 (KAR)

S. Shobarani v. Chinnamma

2017-09-04

B.A.PATIL, JAYANT PATEL

body2017
ORDER : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. The basis of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is the alleged breach and noncompliance of the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by this Court in RFA 1582/13 whereby, there was prohibition against construction over the schedule property. 2. We have heard Mr. D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. M.T.Nanaiah, learned Sr. Counsel with Sri. Prabhugoud S.Tumbigi, learned counsel for accused no. 1. 3. We may record that, after the process was issued by this Court, while the matter was considered on 6.7.2017, this Court passed the following order: “We have heard Mr.Somashekharaiah R.P., learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr.K.S.Mohit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the accused. It appears that this Court on 08.10.2013 granted interim order, whereby qua site Nos.21 and 22, there was also prohibition from putting up any construction and the said order is in operation after hearing both the parties and extended till further orders and the application for vacating of the interim order made by the accused is uptil now not decided. The grievance on the part of the complainant is that inspite of the order passed by this Court being in operation, the construction is made over the land in question. A defence on the part of the accused is that there were some cracks developed and therefore the surfacing was made and roofing was made, but no construction. It may be recorded that in the proceedings of RFA No.1582/2013, this Court had directed the Officer of Bangalore Development Authority to inspect the property and report to the Court and in the said report, it is observed by the Officer after inspection of the property interalia of which reads as under: “It is observed that the structure appears to be newly constructed with an outer limit of not more than 6 months from the date of inspection.” The aforesaid prima facie shows that the order is breached and there is disobedience of the order. The learned Counsel for the accused states that the property is rented to Mr. Govindaraju, at the rate of Rs.26,000/- p.m. In our prima facie view, since the construction is in breach of the order, the property may be required to be sealed but as third party i.e., Mr. Govindaraju, is in possession, the notice may be required to be issued to him. Hence, Mr. Govindaraju, at the rate of Rs.26,000/- p.m. In our prima facie view, since the construction is in breach of the order, the property may be required to be sealed but as third party i.e., Mr. Govindaraju, is in possession, the notice may be required to be issued to him. Hence, Mr. Govindaraju, residing at No.1102/1 and 1107/1, S.C. Road, Pipeline Road, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore-560 022, with the description which is given by the complainant shall be joined as the party. Notice to Mr. Govindaraju, returnable on 19.07.2017. Notice shall be served through Police Officer of the concerned Police Station. The said Govindaraju, shall remain personally present before this Court on the next date with the lease agreement if any, executed and shall report to this Court as to why the property which is constructed in breach of the order should not be sealed, subject to further orders as may be passed by this Court.” 4. Thereafter, the matter was once again considered by this Court on 19.7.2017 and on that day the following order was passed: “Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court Mr.Govindraju is identified by Mr. K.S. Mohit Kumar, learned Counsel for accused is personally present and he states that he is unaware about the interim order of this Court. He has no objection if the premises is sealed as per the order of the Court, but his belongings lying inside the premises may be permitted to be shifted and he states that he would require two weeks time to take out his belongings. Sri Govindaraju, shall remove his belongings from the premises on or before 03.08.2017. Thereafter on 07.08.2017 the Police Officer of the concerned Police Station shall seal the premises and the report shall be submitted to this Court on 09.08.2017. Put up the matter on 09.08.2017.” 5. Since the Police Officer had not submitted the report of compliance of the order on 9.8.2017, the learned AGA had taken time and ultimately on 21.8.2017, the report was submitted and key was tendered on 21.8.2017 and this Court passed the following order: “Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 06.07.2017, learned Additional Government Advocate has tendered a memo reporting the lock and seal of the premises by the police and tendering of the keys. The keys of the premises shall be retained by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in a safe custody. The keys of the premises shall be retained by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in a safe custody. The learned Counsel for the accused is not present. Hence, put up on 28.08.2017.” 6. Pursuant to the above order, the key is retained by the Registrar (Judicial) in the safe custody. 7. Since unconditional apology was not tendered, this Court on 28.8.2017, passed the following order: “Inspite of the earlier order, the accused has not tendered any apology. Therefore, the accused is directed to remain personally present before this on 04.09.2017. Shri H.P.Ganesh Gowda, learned Advocate for accused no.1 shall communicate this order to the accused.” 8. Today once again, we have heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. As declared by the learned counsel appearing for accused, premise was given on rental basis at Rs.26,000/- per month for a period of six months and thereafter this Court directed for application of seal. 9. In our view, the aspect of earning income by committing breach of the order to an extent of Rs.1,56,000/- is proved. If the facts and circumstances are considered together with the earlier order passed by this Court in the present proceedings, we would have taken strict action against the accused for breach of the order. However, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for accused, under the instructions of his client who is stated to be personally present in the Court, declared before us that the accused No.1 is tendering unconditional apology and is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- within a period of six weeks and he is further ready to pay penalty of Rs.25,000/- by way of costs to the complainant. 10. In view of the aforesaid declaration made on behalf of the accused, we find that a lenient view can be taken to put at rest to the present proceedings but, with the further observation and direction that such would be subject to the order as may be passed by the learned Single Judge before whom main RFA is pending including that of confirmation or vacation or modification of the interim order. Till then, the status of the premises as sealed with the key with the Registrar (J) should remain. 11. Till then, the status of the premises as sealed with the key with the Registrar (J) should remain. 11. In view of the above, the unconditional apology of the accused is accepted with the following conditions: (a) The accused deposits an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty six thousand) with this Court within a period of six weeks from today. (b) The accused pays the penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) by way of costs to the complainant within one week from today. (c) If the aforesaid conditions are not complied, it would be open to the complainant to move this Court for revival of the present proceedings. 12. It is also observed that, the rights of the parties before the learned Single Judge in the interim application as well as in the RFA shall remain open to be considered in accordance with law and the premises which is constructed and found to be in breach of the order as well as the key of the premises and the amount of Rs.1,56,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty six thousand only) which is deposited pursuant to the order passed by this Court shall remain subject to further order as may be passed by the learned Single Judge in the main RFA and the rights of the parties thereafter shall stand governed accordingly. 13. No further order deserves to be passed. Hence, present proceedings are disposed of accordingly with liberty to revive as observed earlier.