Karnataka High Court
Criminal LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Removal of collapsed structures is not wilful disobedience when the property’s nature remains unchanged.

SMT. R. NAGARATHNA vs SRI. GOPAL REDDY

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 23, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Removal of collapsed structures is not wilful disobedience when the property’s nature remains unchanged.. SMT. R. NAGARATHNA vs SRI. GOPAL REDDY. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The complainant initiated contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of an interim order dated 22 October 2020 in W.P. No. 58367 of 2016.

Source reference: p. 2

That order directed the parties to maintain status quo without changing the nature of land in Sy. No. 7/1, measuring 3 acres and 12 guntas, in Kambalipura Village.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The complainant alleged that the accused had put up constructions on the land in 2020 and later removed them.

Source reference: p. 4

The accused stated that sheds on the property collapsed in heavy rains on 1 September 2022 and that he removed the collapsed structures; he relied on an affidavit and photographs.

Source reference: pp. 5–6

The Court had summoned the accused for a hearing on framing of charge.

Source reference: p. 4
02

Issues

Whether the accused willfully disobeyed the interim order by removing the collapsed structures from the subject property.

Source reference: pp. 4–6, 8

Whether the accused’s conduct changed the nature of the property in breach of the direction to maintain status quo.

Source reference: pp. 3, 5, 8
03

Law Applied

Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, were invoked in the petition.

Source reference: p. 2

The Court considered whether the alleged conduct amounted to willful disobedience of its interim order.

Source reference: no citation

That order required the parties to maintain status quo specifically as to the nature of the subject property, while permitting the third respondent to seek modification.

Source reference: p. 3

No precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the accused’s explanation that the sheds had become dilapidated and collapsed in heavy rain in 2022, supported by the affidavit and photographs.

Source reference: pp. 5–7

It observed that the accused should have approached the Court for permission to remove the collapsed structures, but found that the land remained agricultural and open, as recorded in the interim order, and that its nature had not changed.

Source reference: p. 8

On that basis, it concluded that the removal did not establish willful disobedience of the status quo direction.

Source reference: p. 8
05

Holding

The Court held that the accused had maintained status quo as to the nature of the property and that the alleged conduct did not constitute willful disobedience.

It discharged the accused and consigned the contempt petition.

Source reference: p. 9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Contempt of Courts Act, 19712

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT. R. NAGARATHNAvsSRI. GOPAL REDDY

Karnataka High Court · September 23, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment