HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Vs. V M NARAYANAPPA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Suo-motu contempt initiated against the accused under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for making false statement regarding possession of the property and attempt to hoodwink the Court to secure favourable orders by suppressing the true facts.

(2.) The accused V.M.Narayanappa claiming to be a tenant of the land bearing Sy.No.10, measuring 3 acres 17 guntas, situated at Mithanahalli village, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District filed an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal, Shidlagatta by its order dated 15-10-1981 granted occupancy rights in respect of the said land. The landlord being aggrieved by the said order filed W.P. No.11998/1982 before this court challenging the same on various grounds. This Court by its order dated 27-2-1985 allowed the writ petition while setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 6-11-1986 rejected the claim of the said V.M.Narayanappa for grant of occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the same, Narayanappa preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority bearing DLRAA No.166/1990. In view of the abolition of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, a Civil Petition came to be filed before this court and the same was numbered as W. P. No. 12984/1997. This Court, by its order dated 18-8-2004 set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal by allowing the writ petition and remanded the matter once again to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, the Land Tribunal reconsidered the matter afresh and rejected the claim of the tenant i.e., V.M.Narayanappa for grant of occupancy rights by its order dated 16-2-2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, Narayanappa filed W.P.No.10881/2010 before this Court.

(3.) As per the directions of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the accused has not filed any memo reporting handing over the possession of the land to the respondents. For non filing of the report by the accused, the appeal was posted before the court on 8-8-2012. On the request made by the accused, the following order has been passed: