Judgment:
(Prayer: This Ccc Is Filed U/Ss.11 and 12 Of The Contempt Of Court Act By The Complainant, Wherein He Prays That The Hon'ble High Court Be Pleased To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against The Accused For Disobeying The Order Dated:24.06.2011 Passed By The Hon'ble High Court In W.P.No.8426/2010.)
B.V.PINTO J.
ORDER
1. We have heard Smt.Shobha, the complainant/party-in-person and Sri K.N.Putte Gowda, Counsel for the accused. Perused the affidavit of the Complainant.
2. This Contempt of Court Petition is filed by the complainant to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for disobeying the order dated 24.6.2011 passed in W.P.No.8426/2010. In W.P.No.8426/2010, the petitioner had prayed for a mandamus to the respondents i.e., Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short 'BBMP' to allot 50' x 80' feet commercial site or a corner site in a developed area in Bangalore Urban equivalent to the property lost on account of illegal encroachment and to award compensation for the consequential loss by way of illegal demolition and illegal collection of taxes and refund of the same, etc.
3. On 24.6.2011, after hearing the petitioner/complainant/party-in-person and Sri K.N.Putte Gowda, learned Counsel for R1, R2, R3, R4, R7, R9 and R12, this Court had passed an order in W.P.No.8426/2010 in the following terms:-
"6. Learned counsel for the BBMP submits that a portion of the petitioner's property, measuring 61' was utilized for the road. Thus it is apparent that a portion of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner's family was hived off for the purpose of road, by the BBMP, since it was a corner site, though without notice or acquisition of the land, in accordance with law. If that is so, then the order- Annexure A of the Commissioner rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable and as a consequence the order dt.23/12/2009-Annexure D of the Administrator too is unsustainable.
In the result, petition is allowed in part. The orders Annexures A and D of the respondents are quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh and to pass orders thereon after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in any event, within a period of 2 months."
4. This Court on receipt of the contempt proceedings issued notice to the respondents by order dated 16.10.2012. The respondents have filed their appearance and also filed the affidavit of one Thrilokchandra, Additional Commissioner BBMP., South, Bangalore and submitted that the second accused has passed an order dated 17.1.2012 in compliance with the order dated 24.6.2011 and has further submitted that the question of disobeying the order does not arise. He has submitted that the contempt petition may be dismissed as the order has been obeyed.
5. On a perusal of Annexure 'R1', it is seen that the Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition, BBMP., has passed an order on 31.10.2011 under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act and also under the relevant provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, proposing to acquire 59 sq. feet of land belonging to the petitioner/complainant, though the claim of the complainant is that the BBMP., has encroached about 650 square feet of the land. The respondent has also passed an order dated 3.11.2012 in this connection. On a reading of the order dated 17.1.2012, it is obvious that the BBMP., has complied with the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 24.6.2011 in W.P.No.8426/2010.
6. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no contempt committed by the respondents and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. However, so far as the dispute regarding the measurement of the area occupied by the Corporation, the same has to be taken up in a separate proceedings and it is not a subject of contempt petition.
8. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.