ORDER : (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) These contempt petitions are filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, complaining disobedience of the learned Single Judge’s orders which are similar in all the writ petitions and which are to the following effect: “i. The petition is allowed. ii. Respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 19.08.2024, submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-F and pass appropriate orders in the light of the approved layout plan.” 2. Heard Sri. S.S.Yadrami, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Chinmay Hegde, learned counsel for the complainant in all the contempt petitions, and Sri. Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General with Sri. Sharad V.Magadum, learned Additional Government Advocate for accused Nos.1 and 2 in all the contempt petitions. Perused the entire contempt petition papers. 3. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. S.S.Yadrami appearing for the complainant(s) would submit that this Court directed the accused to consider the representation dated 19.08.2024 and pass appropriate orders in the light of the approved layout plan. It is submitted that, in the representation, the complainant had sought for re-survey excluding the land relinquished in favour of the State Government for forming a road and to mutate the name of the Government insofar as the land which is relinquished in favour of the Government. As the accused failed to comply the order, the complainant is before this Court. 4. On issuance of notice, accused No.1 filed her affidavit, dated 24.10.2025 stating that, on consideration of the representations of the complainants, endorsement to each of the complainant was issued on 21.07.2025 informing the complainants that their request cannot be considered in view of the government Circular bearing No.SaAaE 578/Mai.Aa.Pra/2016, dated 30.09.2020. Therefore, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there is compliance of the directions issued by this Court. 5. Learned AAG would further submit that this Court directed consideration of the representation in the light of the approved layout plan. He submits that there is no approved layout plan and as such, the accused considered the representation of the complainants in terms of the existing provisions of law and Circulars. Thus, he would pray for dropping further proceedings. 6. Learned AAG would further submit that this Court directed consideration of the representation in the light of the approved layout plan. He submits that there is no approved layout plan and as such, the accused considered the representation of the complainants in terms of the existing provisions of law and Circulars. Thus, he would pray for dropping further proceedings. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire contempt petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that there is substantial compliance of the order of this Court and there is no need to continue the contempt proceedings for the following reasons: The order of the learned Single Judge directs accused No.1 to consider the representation dated 19.08.2024 submitted by the complainant(s) and to pass appropriate orders in the light of the approved layout plan. As submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. Keshav Reddy, there is no approved layout plan. When the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. S.S.Yadrami was questioned as to whether there is any approved layout plan, he is not in a position to make any submission with regard to the approved layout plan. Learned Senior Counsel would point out that Annexure-C to the writ petition itself is the approved plan. On going through Annexure-C, it is seen that it is only a revenue sketch signed by the Tahasildar, Ballari, and it cannot be considered as an approved layout plan. A layout plan could be approved only under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the 1961 Act’). Annexure-C is not a layout plan approved by the competent authority under the 1961 Act. In the absence of an approved layout plan produced by the complainants, the accused considered the representation of the complainant and issued endorsement dated 21.07.2025. We have gone through the endorsement dated 21.07.2025 and for the reasons stated in the endorsement, the accused rejected the request of the complainants. The endorsement would specifically state that taking converted land without the approval of the layout plan, by local authorities for the purpose of road would be not in the interest of developmental plan. 7. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is substantial compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and further contempt proceedings are dropped. 7. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is substantial compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and further contempt proceedings are dropped. However, it is made clear that, if aggrieved, it is open for the complainants to challenge the endorsement dated 21.07.2025 before the appropriate forum. With the above, contempt proceedings, in the above contempt petitions, are dropped. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.