IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2005

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.N.K.SODHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

CCC NO.307/2005 (Civil)

BETWEEN:

• Smt. Chikkavenkatamma, W/o.Late Ramachandrappa, Aged about 85 years, No.7, G.M. Palaya, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore - 560 075.
• R.Muniswamappa, Since deceased by LR Shankaramma, No.7, G.M. Palaya, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore - 560 075.

: Complainants

(By Smt.Pramila, Sr. Adv. with Sri.R.A.Devanand, Adv.)

AND:

• Sri.Byrappa, S/o.Late Munidevappa, Aged about 70 years, No.65, G.M.Palaya, 5^th Cross, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore 560 075.

• Sri.S.Mariswamy, The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Police Commissioner, Infantry Road, Bangalore - 560 001.

• 3. Sri Ashwath Narayan, Station House Officer, Byappanahalli Police Station, Bangalore-560 075.

• Sri Shivarama Reddy, S/o Not known to the complainant, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ulsoor Sub Division, Bangalore.

.... Respondents

i ch s

(By Sri V.Y.Kumar, G.A. for R-2, R-3 & R-4, Sri Shantharaj, Sr.Adv. & sri M.Shivaprakash, Adv. for R-1)

This C.C.C. is filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of the Court Act praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for disobeying the order dated 28.10.2004passed in W.P.No.35087/2004 and that of the order passed in C.C.C.no.1515/2004 dated 22.2.2005.

This C.C.C. coming on for orders this day, the Chief Justice made the following:

<u>ORDER</u>

N.K.SODHI CJ (Oral)

This contempt petition arises out of the alleged violation of the direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the earlier C.C.C. no.1515/2004. The direction issued by the Division Bench was in the following terms,

"However, we direct the Police Commissioner to continue the kind of protection now extended to the petitioners for a further period of six weeks from today".

2. Some civil disputes had arisen between the complainants on the one hand and Byrappa - respondent no.1 on the other which led to the filing of a suit for specific performance. The suit was filed by Byrappa and the same was dismissed by the Civil was filed.

Court. That decree was affirmed in regular first appeal by this Court and it is common ground between the parties that the special leave petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent too was dismissed by the Apex court. Despite the decision of the court, the disputes between the parties have not come to an end. What is alleged by the complainants is that respondent no.1 despite having lost the civil litigation right up to the Supreme Court is still making efforts to take forcible possession of the property in dispute. This assertion is strenuously disputed by Byrappa. Be that as it may, there has been some altercation between the parties on the basis of which a criminal case has been registered by the Police. It was then that the complainants approached this court by filing W.P.no.35087/2004 with a prayer to direct the Police Commissioner to implement the order of the City Civil Court passed in the original suit filed by Byrappa which had been dismissed. While disposing of this writ petition the learned single Judge observed in paragraph-5 of the order as under:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents and in view of the report submitted by the Byappanahalli Police, this Court is of the opinion that when the Police have given adequate protection to the petitioner by deploying a police constable round the clock, the other grievance of the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. This court by directing the police to extend the protection to the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of".

N. K. Sodlin

3

3. The police protection provided by the learned single Judge was ordered to be continued for a further period of six weeks when the Division Bench disposed of the earlier contempt petition on February 22, 2005. The complainants allege that those directions have been violated.

4. In response to the notice issued by this court the respondents have filed their written statements emphatically denying the allegations made in the contempt petition.

We have heard the learned senior counsel for the parties 5. and also the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Police Commissioner and are satisfied that there has been no violation much less wilful of any order/direction issued by this court. As already observed, the learned single Judge had disposed of the writ petition by directing the police to extend the protection to the petitioners. Police protection had been provided to the petitioners by deploying a police constable round the clock. This police protection was ordered to be continued for a further period of six weeks when the C.C.C. was disposed of on February 22, 2005. It is not the case of the complainants that the constable provided to protect them had been withdrawn. What is alleged is that respondent no.1 with the help of the police has been trying to take forcible possession of the property. If that is so the complainants will have to work out their remedies elsewhere in an appropriate forum in accordance with law. Such an allegation

H. K. Godlin

per-se does not violate the directions issued by this court. In this view of the matter no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents has been made out.

6. Before concluding we may observe that it appears respondent no.1 and the complainants are at loggerheads and are still continuing to fight over the property in dispute though it is not for us to decide as to which of the two parties is the aggressor. But there are disputes between them which could create a law and order problem. Both the complainants are widows and one of them is 85 years old. We therefore direct the Police Commissioner to provide them with adequate police protection to ensure that no untoward incident takes place. This protection would extend to the complainants as well as to the property in dispute and the same shall be provided in accordance The Commissioner shall continue to provide them with law. protection till such time he feels the threat persists having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the result the contempt petition fails and the same is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

Sd/-Chief Justice

Sd/-

mv/