A reasoned decision on representations satisfies a direction to consider them, negating contempt.

The complainant alleged that the Tahsildar willfully disobeyed the High Court’s order dated 7 July 2025 in W.P. No. 15061/2025.

That order directed the authority to consider her representations concerning land in Survey Nos. 29 and 35 of Dasenahalli Village in accordance with law, within three months of receiving a certified copy.

In a compliance affidavit, the Tahsildar stated that the representations had been considered and that an endorsement dated 27 October 2025 explained why a Saguvali Chit could not be issued, citing the lands’ location within the 18-kilometre notification area and action initiated to cancel the grant.

The complainant also relied on an earlier order in her mother’s writ petition, W.P. No. 8347/2007, which had made relief conditional on compliance with legal requirements, including payment of the premium.

Whether the Tahsildar’s actions amounted to willful disobedience of the order dated 7 July 2025 in W.P. No. 15061/2025.

Whether the earlier order in W.P. No. 8347/2007 established a basis for contempt in the present petition.

The petition was brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

The court’s inquiry was whether the order alleged to have been breached had been willfully disobeyed.

The writ order required consideration of the complainant’s representations “in accordance with law”; it did not direct issuance of a Saguvali Chit.

The court cited no separate precedent or further legal test.

The court found that the Tahsildar had considered the representations and issued an endorsement explaining the legal impediment to issuing the Saguvali Chit; it therefore held that the writ order had been complied with.

The earlier 2008 order was not shown to have formed part of the 2025 writ proceedings and was not included in the contempt petition.

Further, the complainant did not demonstrate that her mother had satisfied the conditions specified in that earlier order, including the relevant payment requirements.

On these facts, the court found no willful disobedience.

Consigned the contempt petition.