Facts
The complainant filed a contempt petition alleging disobedience of the High Court’s order dated 14 May 2026 in W.P. No. 201939 of 2026.
Source reference: p. 3–4That order directed consideration, in accordance with law, of his representation dated 1 April 2026 within one month of receipt of the certified copy.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Special Land Acquisition Officer stated by affidavit that, after receiving the representation, he requested a land survey; the survey report found that 0.4 gunta of the complainant’s land had not been acquired.
Source reference: p. 4–6An endorsement was issued on 20 July 2026 and sent by registered post the following day, after the stipulated period. The officer acknowledged the delay and tendered an unconditional apology.
Source reference: p. 4–6Issues
1. Whether the respondents’ delayed consideration of the complainant’s representation amounted to willful disobedience of the High Court’s order.
Source reference: p. 3–42. Whether the subsequent compliance, accompanied by an unconditional apology, warranted continuation of the contempt proceedings.
Source reference: p. 5–7Law Applied
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, provide the basis for the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction and power to punish for contempt.
Source reference: p. 2The order in the underlying writ petition required the representation to be considered and appropriate orders passed within one month of receipt of the certified copy.
Source reference: p. 3The Court applied that direction in assessing compliance; it did not cite or discuss any precedent.
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The officer’s affidavit showed that the representation had been considered and an endorsement issued, although after the time prescribed by the writ order.
Source reference: p. 5–6The Court accepted the compliance affidavit and noted the unconditional apology.
Source reference: p. 6–7Finding that the underlying order had been duly complied with, it concluded that no further consideration of the contempt petition was necessary.
Source reference: p. 6–7The merits of the endorsement were left open for challenge in separate proceedings.
Source reference: p. 6–7Holding
The Court treated the writ order as complied with and dropped the contempt proceedings, discharging the notice.
It reserved liberty to the complainant to challenge the endorsement, if so advised.
Source reference: p. 7Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Contempt of Courts Act, 19712
Original Court PDF
SRI YANKANNA YADAV @ A VENKANNAvsSRI GURUSIDDAYYA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
