IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 41i{ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 PRESENT THE HON ‘BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA CCC NO.2 129 OF 201D (CIVIL) BETWEEN: SRI.VIRUPAKSHAPPA AGADI 5/0 LATE SANGANNA ANDANAPPA AGADI AGE: 70 YEARS, DCC: BUSINESS R/O STATION, KOPPAL TQ. AND DIST. IKOPPAL .. COMPLAINANT (BY SRI.S.A.H.RAZVI & SRI.A.B,PATIL, ADV.) AND: 1, K.S.SATYAMURTHY DY. COMMISSIONER KOPPAL. TQ. AND DIST.KOPPAL 2. H.B.BELLIGATTI MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY KOPPAL, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL 3. SRI.S.S.BIRADAR THE EXECUTiVE ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, BIJAPUR 4. SRI.P.B.PATIL INS PECTOR OF POLICE LOTTERY AND EXCISE KOPPAL, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL ... ACCUSEI) This CCC is filed under Section 1 1 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to inquire and try the contempt committed by the respondent for demolishing the complex of the petition in violation of the orders passed in WP No.20942/2011 dated 22.6.2011 vide Ann-B and punish the contemnors as per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This CCC coming on for orders this da. SUBHASH B ADI J., made the following: ORDER Though this matter is listed for compliance of office objections, however, the matter is also considered on merit. 2. This contempt of court case is in respect of the order of this Court in WP No.20942/2001 dated 22.6.2001. 3. This Court, in the said writ petition. had recorded the submission made by the Government Pleader to the effect that if the property is found to be a private property. appropriate steps should he taken to acquire the property before demolition. Now. it appears that the proceedings have been initiated. There is nothing on record to show that the propert} is a private property or public lropert’ and even if it is a private property, petitioner can very well protect his property b appropriate means. B’ reading of the order, it does not show that there is any direction or protection given to the petitioner. As such, we do not find any ground to initiate contempt proceedings. 4. Hence, contempt of court case dismissed. Consequently, Misc.Cvl.Nos. 60881/2011 and 60880/2011 are also dismissed. Sd! JUDGE I RV I JUDGE