Karnataka HC Drops Contempt Case After Officials Survey Land And Issue Endorsement On Woman’s Mutation Claim

In W.P. No. 202053 of 2025, the High Court directed the revenue authorities to arrange a survey, consider the complainant’s mutation claim in accordance with law, and communicate an appropriate order within three months of receiving the certified copy.

The order also provided for costs of ₹1,000 per day against respondents 2 to 4 for further delay without legally justifiable grounds.

The complainant later initiated contempt proceedings, alleging non-compliance.

Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit stating that the survey was conducted and that an endorsement had been issued to the complainant on 27 October 2026; he also tendered an unconditional apology for the delay.

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was invoked as the statutory basis for seeking contempt proceedings for alleged disobedience of the Court’s order.

The underlying order required the specified survey and consideration and communication of the mutation claim within three months, and provided for daily costs in the event of further delay without legally justifiable grounds.

The Court’s order does not cite any precedent or set out a separate test for wilful disobedience.

The Court considered the compliance affidavit, which stated that the survey had been completed, a report submitted, and an endorsement issued and received by the complainant.

It accepted that the respondents had complied with the writ direction and noted the unconditional apology for the delay; on that basis, it found that nothing further remained for consideration in the contempt petition.

The Court did not determine the merits of the endorsement or separately quantify the daily costs contemplated by the original order.

It discharged notice to the respondents and reserved liberty to the complainant to challenge the endorsement if desired.