Contempt proceedings were closed after the Court found the writ order had been complied with.

The complainants sought contempt proceedings against Accused No. 4, alleging violation of the High Court’s order dated 7 April 2025 in connected writ petitions.

In that order, the Court quashed an Assistant Commissioner’s order and permitted the Tahsildar to submit a report to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (“KLR Act”); it also directed restoration of the complainants’ revenue entries if those entries had been mutated against them.

In the contempt proceedings, the respondents produced a Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 25 May 2026, made in Section 136(3) proceedings on the basis of the Tahsildar’s report, and an endorsement dated 20 July 2026 communicating that order.

No one appeared for the complainants at the hearing.

1. Whether the respondents had deliberately disobeyed the High Court’s order dated 7 April 2025.

2. Whether the steps taken under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act established compliance with that order.

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

The underlying writ order permitted the Tahsildar to submit a report to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act and provided for restoration of the complainants’ revenue entries if they had been mutated against them.

The Court cited no precedent and stated no separate test for contempt; it assessed compliance by comparing the subsequent revenue proceedings with the terms of its earlier order.

The Court noted that the Tahsildar had submitted a report and that the Deputy Commissioner had considered proceedings under Section 136(3), ultimately passing an order concerning the disputed revenue entries.

It also noted that the resulting endorsement had been communicated to the complainant.

On that record, the Court found that the writ order had been complied with and did not find a basis to continue the contempt proceedings.

The Court held that its order dated 7 April 2025 had been complied with and consigned the contempt case.