Virupaxappa S/O Virupaxappa v. Srio C Sathyanarayan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100338 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUNJALI ONI, GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

¶1SRI C. SATHYNARAYAN THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC PORT AND INLAND WATER, TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.334, 3RD FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶2SRI SURESH B. ITNAL I.A.S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL-583231.

¶3THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC, PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …ACCUSED (BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.03 14:45:33 +0530 NC:(2025:KHC-D:16372-DB( CCC(No.(100338(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( THIS,CCC,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTIONS,11,AND,12,OF,THE, CONTEMPT, OF, COURTS, ACT, READ, WITH, ARTICLE, 215, OF, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,PUNISH,THE,ACCUSED, FOR, DISOBEYING, THE, ORDER, DATED, 08/11/2024, PASSED, BY, THE,HON'BLE,HIGH,COURT,IN,W.P.NO.106118/2024,(GM-RES), VIDE,ANNEXURE-A,,IN,THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY.,, THIS, PETITION, COMING, ON, FOR, HEARING, BEFORE, CHARGE,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,G,PANDIT, AND,, THE,HON'BLE,MRS,JUSTICE,GEETHA,K.B., ( ORAL(ORDER( , (PER:,THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,G,PANDIT)( Dr.Suresh,B.,Itnal,,Deputy,Commissioner,,Bagalkote,, is,present,before,the,Court.,

2., Learned, counsel, Sri, Sanjay, Chanal,, for, the, complainant, and, learned, Additional, Advocate, General, Sri,Gangadhar, J.M.,, along, with, Additional, Government, Advocate,Sri,Sharad,V.,Magadum,,for,accused,Nos.1,to,3, are,present.,,

¶3This contempt petition is filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging willful disobedience of order dated

08.11.2024, in W.P.No.106118/2024 (GM-RES), wherein this Court passed the following order: "i) The petition is allowed.

ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.1 to consider representation of petitioner dated

24.8.2023, as per Annexure B and B1 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶4As this Court prima facie found that there was non compliance of the order passed by this Court, by order dated 18.11.2025, posted the contempt petition to hear before charge.

¶5Subsequently, affidavit dated 21.11.2025 of Dr.Suresh S/o.Balachandra Itnal, Deputy Commissioner, Koppal District, is filed enclosing Annexures-A to I documents. Annexure-I dated 21.11.2025 would indicate issuance of notification under section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶6This Court, by order dated 08.11.2024 in W.P.No.106118/2024, directed the respondent therein to consider representation of petitioner dated

24.08.2023 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

¶7It is stated that in the above said representation, the petitioner had sought for initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land to an extent of 11 guntas, which was utilized for formation of road, in the year 2005.

¶8Since notification under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act is issued, we are of the considered opinion that

the proceedings for acquisition has been initiated. However, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the award is yet to be passed. Award is consequential, which the accused shall have to pass by following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

¶9In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court. However, if the award is not passed within time frame, it is open for petitioner/complainant to revive the contempt petition.

¶10However, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Gangadhar J.M., would submit that the authority requires six months time from today to pass the award.

¶11In the light of the above, if the accused fails to pass award within six months, it is open for the complainant to file application for revival of the contempt petition.

¶12With above, present contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶13In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

MRK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54