Mr Prakash Chandra Punamiya @ Prakash Punamiya v. Suma.R Kas

ORDER i. The petitioners are given the liberty to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2 detailing the compensation that they are entitled to in accordance with law. ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. iii. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are hereby disposed of."

¶3It appears that a representation dated

20.04.2024, was moved by the complainant seeking

allotment of an alternative site of the same measurement as the property acquired by the BDA in his favour, in view of the acquisition of the subject-mentioned site. In the compliance affidavit, it has been stated that by way of an endorsement dated 11.08.2026, the representation has been decided.

¶4The documents enclosed alongwith the representation are the copy of the sale deed dated

03.02.1982, the encumbrance certificate, the gazette notification, a representation dated 14.01.2020 and the order dated 21.02.2024. None of the aforesaid documents that are stated to be enclosures to the representation have been filed along with this petition.

¶5We further note that there is an admitted delay of 159 days in filing this contempt petition, which is reflected in I.A. No.1 of 2026, filed only on 16.02.2026, despite the filing of the contempt case on 25.09.2025. The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation

of delay relates to the sufferance of the deponent due to age-related health constraints, and that reason is cited as bonafide.

¶6In our opinion, that cannot be a ground to extend the limitation as provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2026 stands dismissed.

¶7In view of the reasons aforesaid, this contempt petition is consigned.

Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:44593-DB( CCC(No.(1294(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010645682025( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(19 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(JAYANT(BANERJI( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MS.(JUSTICE(TARA(VITASTA(GANJU( CIVIL(CONTEMPT(PETITION(NO.(1294(OF(2025(( BETWEEN:(( ( MR.,PRAKASH,CHANDRA,PUNAMIYA,, @,PRAKASH,PUNAMIYA,, S/O,SRI.MANGILAL,JAIN,, AGED,ABOUT,63,YEARS,, R/AT,NO.24,,GANESH,KRIPA,, KAVI,KALIDASA,ROAD,,GANDHINAGAR,, BANGALORE-560,009., …COMPLAINANT, (BY,SRI.,SHREERAM,TIMMAPPA,NAYAK.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( ( Digitallytisignedtiby SUMA.R.,(K.A.S), JAI0JYOTHI0J THE,SPECIAL,LAND,ACQUISITION,OFFICER,,Location:0HIGH COURT0OF BDA,SANKEY,ROAD,, KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560,020., …ACCUSED, (BY,SRI.,B.S.KARTHIKEYAN.,,ADVOCATE), , , THIS,CCC,IS,FILED,UNDER,,SECTIONS,11,AND,12,,OF, THE,,CONTEMPT,OF,COURTS,ACT,,1971,,R/W,ARTICLE,215,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, BY, THE, COMPLAINANT,, WHEREIN,PRAYS,THAT,THE,HON'BLE,COURT,BE,PLEASED,TO, TAKE, COGNIZANCE, OF, THE, AFORESAID, ACTS, OF, CIVIL, CONTEMPT, COMMITTED, BY, THE, ACCUSED, AND, INITIATE, CONTEMPT,OF,COURT,PROCEEDINGS,AGAINST,THE,ACCUSED, FOR, COMMITTING, DISOBEDIENCE, TO, THE, ORDER, DATED, 21.02.2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO.24066/2021 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ALSO FOR COMMITTING WILLFUL BREACH BY THE ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. 2. Disobedience of the order dated 21.02.2024, passed in Writ Petition No.24066 of 2021 is alleged. The order dated 21.02.2024, reads as follows: 1. The case of the petitioners is that their lands have been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority ('the BDA' for short). 2. However, compensation has not been paid. It is further contended that a house was standing on the said properties and the same has been demolished. Hence, they have filed this instant writ petitions with the following prayers: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to: (a) Issue a writ directing the Respondent to allot a site of the same valuation for the land which was acquired. (b) Direct the Respondent to pay the suitable compensate for demolishing the house of the Petitioner on the property. (c) Direct the Respondent not to act nor to allot the same to anyone since the Petition is pending before this Hon'ble court concerned seeking for the regularization of the same and, (d) Pass such other orders that this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity." 3. In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they would be satisfied if their case are considered by the Bangalore Development Authority ('the BDA' for short) as per the guidelines passed by this Court in W.P.No.8991/2006 and appropriate orders is passed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents are also agreeable for the same and the learned counsel for the BDA submits that if the petitioners were to give a detailed representation, their case would be considered on the guidelines issued by this Court in W.P.No.8991/2006 and appropriate orders would be passed thereafter. 5. Hence, the following: