C Ifll/200° I IN tHE 111GB cou OF KARNA’[AKA CIRCUIT’ BENCH Al’ GULBARGA DAI El) THIS THE 9” DAY 01 MAR( H. 2O0 P1* SENT’ THE lION’BEE MR USTICE VGSABHAHl I AND [hF HON’BEE MRJUSTICE A SJACHHAPI’RE cccN 2 i2i12Qc ,‘ c ,_ e’eCi \jt BE! WEEN: 1. Nani an ippa, S/do IKanvamunappa Harijan, AgeS 4 veam, Ocr Agriculture, R/ o Madsixwai Village, ‘ci Sindanooi, DiaL Raichur 2. Venkoha, S/o Kariyamunappa Harijau, Age: 40 years 0cc Agriculture, R/ Madsln4ar village, fq. Srndanooi, Dist Raichin ..(OMFI,AINANI (By Sri Ustad Sadat Hussain, Advi MND I Govinda Reddy, KAS, Asst Conuuissioner, Lingasugur, DiaL Raichur, 2 YMaThkarjun, I ahasildar. Sindanoor, Dist Raichtu, t’ç( 1321/2009 2 3. Boodappa, Revenue Inspector, Badarli Circle Sindanoor, Dist Raichur 4. Snmvas, Village Accountant, Madsimarvillage, Accuru Tq Smdanoor, Dist. Raichur 1 ESPONDEN NJ (BySriMkumar,AGA) cencct’c(v1c cTctmct fr1i’ This CCC is filed undex Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent/accused for disobeying the directions and observations made by Hon’blc Court m W.PNo 6889/1991 by order dated 8 31994 and be pleased to cancel the illotted order referred above by the respondents/ace used. This CCC coming on for orders today SABIJAIIIT J delivered the following ORDER 01 Heard the learned uounsel fur the complainant and the learned Addi Csovcniment Advocate 02. I Ins ompiaint is filed for disobe lag the order dated 08 03 1994 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP.No6889/1991, wherein the ordei dated 13,12,l88 passed by the Land Tribunal impugned in the writ petition was set ealdc and CCC 1321/2009 ‘3 the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunals Smdhannr for fresh disposal m actzoidance with lat in the light of the obseivations made in the order. 03 It is the contention of th complainant that despite thc request being made to the Land fribunal the application was not disposed of and thereafter Land Tribunal was not constituted and the (omplamant issued notice on 29.06.2006 and despite the same, the matter is not disposed of by the Frib anal and in fact the land has been illotted hI the Assistant Commissioner to some other person and therefore there is willful disobedience to the order dated 08 03 1994 passed in W.P No 6889/1991 94. Office has raised an objection stating that there is a delay uf 13 wars and 238 dai s in filing the contempt petition 05 The complainant claims to be the sons of Karivamnnappa Harijar who according to them was the writ pc titioner in W.P.No.6889/ 1991 Learned C’ iunsel for the ‘omplair an sub mttd that despite the order passed be this Court on 0&03. 1994 in W. 1. No.6889/1991, t& Land Pribunal has not disposed of the mattei and the land in respect of wInch occupancy rights were claimed, has en all)tte I in fax’ tnt of some other person and the limitation for \y\ 7 S. C(( 1321/2009 4 filing this contempt petition commences alter the notice was issued and therefore there is no bar to take cognizance under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act. On the other hand, learned Addi Government Advocate submitted that the petition is barred by time and no eognizancc can be taken. 06 We have given careful consideration to tht contentions of the karned Counsel for the Complainant and the learned AddL Gevemment Advocate 07 It is c lear from thi provisions of Section 20 of the Contt mpt of Court Act, 1971 that no Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt either on its )ii n motion or otheniise, after the expin’ of a vrrod of one sear from the dali on which fire contempt is alleged to have been committed In the present case, there was no suh d un lion issued by this Court to dispose of the application of the writ pebtioner within a stipulated time so as to complain that the said direction to dispose of the application within the stipulated time has not bet ii complied w 1 th 4 ‘ 08. In an of the matter whether the period of limitation is hum the L daft of the order within the reasonable linac thereafter or even fronr 29 06)006 tin date on whk h tb notkc was issued b the CCC 132 1 / 200Q ) pt titioner produce I as ninexure to the omplaint the period of )flC year is wet ar d his Court cannot take cognizance of this complaint ni even on merits we are satisfied that m the absent. e of any \ . 1 4e direction to dispose of the application within reakenabic time and the petitioi ci complain mt has not been dthgent m approaching fins Court within the time stir niated it is open to the complainant to work out his remedy in ac conlanee ic th law in a. speet of the onlex dated 07 07 2008 wherein the land has bten granted to Dat atreya by the Assistar t Commissic n r O Aceardingli, we bokI that the complaint is barred bt time and atrordingiy the contempt petition is dismissed on the ground of dela md merits. However, the dismissal of this contempt petition ith not come m the war of the complainant working out ins remcdx in rspect of the order dated 07 07. 2008 in accordant e ii itb law. Sdft JUDGE Sd! JUDGE rJ