- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ABDUL SATTAR MAHBOOB ALI SHIRAHATTI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7930-DB CCC No. 100175 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100175 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. ABDUL SATTAR MAHBOOB ALI SHIRAHATTI
R/O RASOOLPUR GALLI, DHARWAD 580001.
2. SIDAPPA BHADRASHETTY
R/O LAKMAPUR, DHARWAD-580001. - COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. BASANNA N. PATTEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD 580001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
FOR DHARWAD SUB-DIVISION,
DHARWAD 58000.
4. THE TAHASHILDAR AND TALUKHA EXECUTIVE
MAGISTRATE FOR DHARWAD TALUKHA,
DHARWAD 580001.
5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
- 2 -
TAHASHILDAR OFFICE, DHARWAD,
DISTRICT DHARWAD 580001.
6. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
FOR DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD.
7. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE,
DHARWAD 580001.
8. GIRIJA W/O VEERSANGAPPA HOSAMANI R/O MALLIKARJUN NIALAY, M.B. NAGAR,
KOPPADAKERI, DHARWAD 580001.
9. MAHENTESH,
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA CHANDARGI R/O HOSUR GALLI,
PUDKALKATTI VILLAGE 581206,
TQ AND DIST DHARWAD.
- ACCUSED
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR A1-A7)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 9
AND PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE
ORDER DATED 09-06-2023 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.101100/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
- 3 -
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) Office has raised an objection regarding maintainability of this contempt petition, while stating that no positive directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge, which are to be complied by the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits while taking this Court through the petition that respondent No.8, knowing fully well and being aware of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, has deliberately and dishonestly executed sale deeds on 26.02.2024 in favour of accused No.9 and has therefore caused hardship to the parties in O.S. No. 46/1982 and M.S.A. No. 100156/2017.
3. Learned counsel would also point out to Annexure-B, which is a letter written by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad Sub Division, Tahasildar, Dharwad Taluk, the concerned Revenue Inspector, The District Registrar, Dharwad, The Sub
- 4 -
Registrar, Dharwad, and the respondents No.8 and 9. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner/ complainant has requested the concerned to curb the land mafia in Dharwad District.
4. We are not impressed with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The scope of a contempt petition is only to consider whether there is any deliberate and willful disobedience of a Court order or direction. We see from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 101100/2021 dated 09.06.2023 that the petitioner is not even a party to the proceedings. That the petitioners therein had raised a challenge to the revenue entries which were also the subject matter of the suit and the learned Single Judge has only directed that the revenue entries of the lands in question shall be subject to the outcome of the suit and the Miscellaneous Second Appeal. Therefore, if during the pendency of the suit and the Miscellaneous Second Appeal, if one of the parties has executed a sale deed in favour of another person to take action in accordance with law, that may give rise to a cause of action
- 5 -
for the aggrieved person, however, we do not see how such execution of the sale deed would be against the directions issued by the learned Single judge. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge are only regarding the revenue entries.
5. We also find that the petitioner, not being a party to the writ proceedings could not have filed this contempt petition.
6. In that view of the matter, we uphold the office objections and dismiss the contempt petition. Liberty is reserved to the aggrieved persons in the suit to take action in a manner known to law, if any of their rights have been violated during the pendency of the suit.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
BVV
CT:VP/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13
Alert