D. N. PARIMALA Vs. G. KUMAR NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a grievance that the accused has committed willful disobedience of the order dtd. 19/7/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8714/2021, the present contempt petition is filed.

(2.) Pursuant to the notice issued to the accused, an affidavit is filed on behalf of the accused on 29/3/2023. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, an endorsement dtd. 4/2/2023 was issued by the accused which is placed on record as Annexure-R1. A perusal of the endorsement shows that the complainant had filed a writ petition against the accused seeking to return the original sale deed for the purpose of re-allotting the revenue site bearing No.19, formed out of Sy.No.21 situated at Gavipura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is also stated in the endorsement that since the original sale deed of the aforesaid revenue site is not found, a certified copy of the sale deed has been obtained from the concerned sub-registrar's office. The certified copy of the sale deed is provided to the complainant along with a letter stating that the certified copy can be used for his own use and in case the original sale deed is found, the same will be handed over directly to the complainant without giving it to any third party.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused submits that as the endorsement discloses the fact that due to non-availability of the original sale deed in the records of the accused- Bangalore Development Authority, the accused was left with no choice to obtain certified copy of the sale deed from the office of the sub-registrar.