Bheemanagouda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Bheemanagouda and Another vs State of Karnataka and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Dec 11, 1997

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/382564

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/382564
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Mohamed Anwar, J.
Decided On: Dec 11, 1997
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 34765 of 1997
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per C...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 - Sections 5; Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1962 - Rules 4(2), 5(1) and 6

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bheemanagouda and Another

Advocate Sri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and Others

Advocate Sri M. Siddagangaiah, High Court Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 - Sections 5; Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1962 - Rules 4(2), 5(1) and 6
Reported In: 1998(5)KarLJ194

Excerpt

.....of court proceedings) rules, 1981, clause (v) of rule 5; [dr.k. bhakthavatsala, j] whether the consent of the advocate general is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? held, as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the supreme court or the high court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the advocate general. the high court of karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under article 215 of the constitution of india and section 23 of the act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the high court of karnataka (contempt of court proceedings) rules, 1981. as per clause (v) of rule 5 of the contempt rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the advocate general and if so, produce the same. it further says that nothing shall preclude the high court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. under section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the advocate general, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the advocate general. therefore, obtaining consent of the advocate general to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. - 89 of 1997-98, dated 8-10-1997 was passed by the deputy commissioner directing his office to file the application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make their application together with occupancy price within the prescribed time i. kalyanashetty, representing the learned counsel for petitioners rightly contended that the impugned order of respondent 3 is vitiated by reason of he not following the mandatory requirement..........delay in making of the petitioners' said application and non-payment of occupancy price by them. therefore, the impugned order of respondent 2-tahsildar at annexure-e bearing no. vtn:cr:21 of 1997-98 dated 26-7-1997 directing eviction of petitioners from the said lands in question and also the impugned order of respondent 3 are liable to be quashed.5. for the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. the impugned order of respondent 2-tahsildar at annexure-e bearing no. vtn:cr:21 of 1997-98, dated 26-7-1997 and the impugned order of respondent 3 at annexure-g no. kom.v.vtn:cr:89 of 1997-98, dated 8-10-1997 are quashed. since by virtue of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the karnataka village offices abolition act 1961, the tahsildars of respective taluks are appointed by the government by gazette notification no. rd 415 mbs 79, bangalore, dated 29-8-1979 to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the deputy commissioner under the act in respect of the areas within their jurisdiction, the matter isremitted to respondent 3-tahsildar with a direction to accept the petitioners' said application at annexure-f which was made before respondent 2 as a valid application and to proceed to pass the order thereon in accordance with law after accepting the requisite occupancy price payable by them. he shall dispose of their said application by an appropriate speaking order within 6 months from the date of communication of copy of this order after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to petitioners and other interested persons, if any.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The arguments of learned Counsel for petitioner and of learned High Court Government Pleader Sri M. Siddagangaiah for respondent are heard.

2. Admittedly, the lands in question in Sy. Nos. 31/1, 31/2 and 31/3 situate at Nagaral Done, Sindgi Taluk of Bijapur District were the Service Inam lands attached to the Village Office of Mulki and Police Patilki. The ancestors of petitioners were the holders of the said Village Office. It is the case of the petitioners and they were minors when the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) came into force. After the death of their respective fathers and after they attained their majority both petitioners had given their joint application dated 15-9-1997 under Section 5 of the Act before respondent 3-Deputy Commissioner, praying to regrant the said lands to them and further stating at para 4 therein that respondent 2-Tahsildar refused to accept the requisite occupancy price when they wanted to credit the same. The copy of that application is at Annexure-F. On their said application the impugned Order at Annexure-G bearing No. Kom.V.VTN:CR:89 of 1997-98, dated 8-10-1997 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner directing his office to file the application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make their application together with occupancy price within the prescribed time i.e., on or before 30-6-1992.

3. Mr. Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, representing the learned Counsel for petitioners rightly contended that the impugned order of respondent 3 is vitiated by reason of he not following the mandatory requirement of law contained in Rule 4(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1962 ('the Rules' for short) and on his failure to exercise his discretion under proviso to Rule 5(1)(b) in the matter of condoning the delay caused if any in making of the application for re-grant of the service inam lands.

4. Rule 4 reads. -

'4. Time and manner of payment of occupancy price under Sections 5 and 6. -

(1)XXX XXX.(2). The Deputy Commissioner, shall, well in advance of the date fixed for payment of the first instalment of occupancy price, cause to be served a notice on every holder of a village office intimating the date on which such payment has to be made. He shall also cause a similar notice to be served on every holder of a village office in respect of payment of second and third instalments of the occupancy price. The notice under this rule shall be served in the manner prescribed for service of notices under the Code'.

A plain reading of this provision makes it abundantly clear that the Deputy Commissioner was bound to cause service of notice on the petitioners intimating them the last date by which the payment of the requisite occupancy was required to be made by them. Admittedly, no such notice was issued by him to the petitioners and the same was not served on them. For the reason of non-compliance of this mandatory requirement of law by the Deputy Commissioner his impugned order stands vitiated. Furthermore, this default on his part would be the sufficient cause for him to exercise his discretion favourably under proviso to Rule 5(1)(b) in the matter of condoning the delay in making of the petitioners' said application and non-payment of occupancy price by them. Therefore, the impugned order of respondent 2-Tahsildar at Annexure-E bearing No. VTN:CR:21 of 1997-98 dated 26-7-1997 directing eviction of petitioners from the said lands in question and also the impugned order of respondent 3 are liable to be quashed.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned Order of respondent 2-Tahsildar at Annexure-E bearing No. VTN:CR:21 of 1997-98, dated 26-7-1997 and the impugned order of respondent 3 at Annexure-G No. Kom.V.VTN:CR:89 of 1997-98, dated 8-10-1997 are quashed. Since by virtue of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act 1961, the Tahsildars of respective taluks are appointed by the Government by Gazette Notification No. RD 415 MBS 79, Bangalore, dated 29-8-1979 to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act in respect of the areas within their jurisdiction, the matter isremitted to respondent 3-Tahsildar with a direction to accept the petitioners' said application at Annexure-F which was made before respondent 2 as a valid application and to proceed to pass the order thereon in accordance with law after accepting the requisite occupancy price payable by them. He shall dispose of their said application by an appropriate speaking order within 6 months from the date of communication of copy of this order after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to petitioners and other interested persons, if any.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1997 Same Parties Bheemanagouda and Another vs State of Karnataka and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge Mohamed Anwar, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 - Sections 5; K...

Property