Muniraju S v. N Nagaraju

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1066 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

¶1MUNIRAJU S SON OF SEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT MANDIBELE VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU - 562 135 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1N NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER (DEVANAHALLI RANGE) SAVUKANAHALLI GATE DEVANAHALLI - DODDABALLAPURA ROAD BANGALORE 561 203 .....ACCUSED

¶2STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRL. SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT BENGALURU 560 001 …PRO FORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)

by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE NECESSARY ACCUSED FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.04.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.10945/2025 BY THIS HONBLE COURT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10945/2025 (GM-FOR).

¶2Plain reading of the said order indicates that the Court had directed status quo in respect of the subject property, as obtaining on the said date.

¶3The complainant alleges that the said order has been violated and the officials of the accused have entered the subject land and carried out certain activities. Photographs have been produced which are annexed as Annexure-B1 to B6 which indicates the number of forest officials on the said land.

¶4The accused have filed an affidavit stating that they have not violated the status quo order. The accused have also annexed the photographs which reflect that proceedings were conducted on the spot on 21.02.2025. Therefore, the said photographs do suggest that the forest officials had taken over possession of the subject land. The said photographs also show that the land in question is barren. The photographs as produced by the accused are not disputed.

¶5The complainant has filed the rejoinder stating that the photographs in question as produced by the accused were taken on 21.02.2025 and they are also in conformity with the photographs taken by the complainant. The complainant alleges that the forest officials have planted saplings on the subject land after the order of status quo was passed.

¶6The accused have made counter allegations to the effect that the complainant is attempting to take over possession of the land and have also produced photographs showing the complainant removing certain saplings. The complainant has also attempted to plant trees on the subject land.

¶7It does appear from the record that the accused has taken over possession of the subject land and therefore, we are unable to accept that status quo order as to the possession and title of the property has been disturbed by the accused.

¶8In view of the above, the complaint is accordingly closed.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

KPS