B. R. RAJASHEKARA MURTHY Vs. SRI MANJUNATH THAMANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present contempt petition is filed alleging disobedience of the order dtd. 17/8/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.41564/2018.

(2.) Vide order dtd. 5/1/2023, a reference was made to the compliance affidavit filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of accused No.2. Paragraph 3 of the compliance affidavit was reproduced in the said order. At the cost of repetition, we may refer to clause b) of paragraph 3 of the compliance affidavit wherein, it is stated that further directions were also issued as per order dtd. 3/7/2009 to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk to take necessary action regarding completion of podi and durasthi work after considering the case of one Sri T.K.Doreswamy (who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the Revision Petition). In clause c) of paragraph 3, it is stated that it was found by the Tahsildar that the lands in question are government lands, proceedings were initiated under Sec. 136(3) and 67(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Thereafter, notices were issued to the original owner i.e., the mother of the complainants and also to the legal heirs of the complainants. The matter is pending in 136(3) proceedings. Copies of the notices along with endorsement are produced on record as Annexure-R2 series. It is also recorded in the order dtd. 5/1/2023 that the learned counsel for the complainants prayed for some time and accordingly, the matter was adjourned.

(3.) Today, the learned counsel for the complainants submits that the issuance of notice by the Authority is unsustainable on various grounds. He submits that the notice was issued to the original land owner, i.e., the mother of the complainants. As the mother of the complainants is expired, issuing notice to a dead person itself is unsustainable. He further submits that the complainants are participating in 136(3) proceedings by engaging a counsel.