Sri K B Nagarajaiah v. Sharath

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The respondent No.4 – Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2024 and effect katha by taking cognizance of the title documents.

(iii) The petitioner shall furnish Encumbrance Certificate reflecting the transaction between Siddamma and Chandrashekaraiah and also transaction reflected between the petitioner's father and Chandrashekaraiah.

(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of Encumbrance Certificate and certified copy of the title documents."

¶3When queried, learned counsel for the complainant refers to Annexure-"A" which is a communication dated

30.01.2024 in which it is stated that among other

documents, an Encumbrance Certificate from 01.04.1970 to 23.11.2003 and from 05/2003 till 2015 were enclosed. It is noted that in this petition, the enclosures mentioned in Annexure-"A" have not been enclosed.

¶4It is evident from perusal of the directions of the writ court, that the complainant/petitioner was required to furnish the Encumbrance Certificate reflecting the transaction between Siddamma and Chandrashekaraiah and also transaction between the petitioner's father and Chandrashekaraiah.

¶5The complainant/petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the Encumbrance Certificate that was required to be filed, evinced the transactions aforesaid. Moreover, in the compliance affidavit filed today by the learned AGA, it is stated that on verification of the documents and revenue record, it was noted that the person shown as the kathedar in the existing revenue records and the person from whom the property is claimed

to have been acquired by the petitioner's father were not tallying. Thus, the complete chain of title required verification before effecting the khatha.

¶6Therefore, a notice dated 22.08.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to produce necessary certified documents including Form Nos.15 and 16 reflecting the transactions. It is stated that neither the petitioner produced the Encumbrance Certificate nor certified title documents reflecting the earlier transaction between Siddamma and Chandrashekaraiah. It is further stated that now the property over which the complainant claims a right has been excluded from the territorial limits of Magadi Taluk and included within the limits of Nelamangala Taluk pursuant to a notification issued by the Revenue Department.

¶7In view of the aforesaid, no contempt has been demonstrated by the complainant. This contempt petition is therefore, consigned.

¶8This order will not preclude the complainant from taking up the matter before the Tahsildar concerned, in accordance with law.

Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1250 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. K.B.NAGARAJAIAH S/O LATE BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O KANNASANDRA VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 127. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. BASANAGOUDA.S.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH.P.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHARATH THE TAHSILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI-562 120. …ACCUSED 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G., AGA FOR PROFORMA R2 & A1) Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, SINCE THEY HAVE FAILED TO OBEY AND IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2025 IN WP NO.28379/2024 (KLR-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA appearing for the accused. 2. Allegation regarding willful disobedience of the order dated 09.01.2025 in W.P.No.28379/2024 is alleged. The writ court had passed an order on 09.01.2025, the operative part of which reads as follows: "8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: