IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DRARWAD DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE MANJULA CHELLUR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO CCC No.2346/2011 AND CCC No.2365/2011 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: 1. Sri Gopal S/o, Jugalkishore Jaju, Aged about 47 years, R/at Dharamaveer Sambhaji Nagar, Vadagaon, Belgaum. 2. Sri Raju S/o. Balachandra Honule, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.34, Sambhaji Nagar, Vadagaon, Belgaum. . . .Complainants [By Shri Mrutvunjav Tata Bangi, Advocate I AND: Smt, Ekroop Kour, The Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum. .. .Accused [By Shri C.S.Patil, AGA] These contempt petitions are filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, praying to, initiate and prosecute and punish the accused for willfully disobeying the orders of this Hon ‘hie Court passed in Writ Petition os.68398 .90/201() dated 25.11.2010, as per Annexure-E. The contempt petitions are coming on for orders this day. Manjula Chelluri, made the following: ORDER The counter affidavit of the respondent — Deputy Commissioner is perused. The present complainants are complaining non-compliance of the order dated 25.11.2010 in Writ Petition Nos. 683q8-68399,/2010. 2. The complainants herein have sought for conversion of agriculture land to non-agriculture purpose by filing an application before the respondent — Authority, as contemplated under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The same came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, they approached the Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals and the appeals came to be allowed on 28.07.2010. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal. the State approached the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.6542 1 and 65422/201 1. The said writ petitions are pending. 5; :3: 3. On earlier occasion. Writ Petition Nos.68398/2010 and 68399/2010 came to be filed by the complainants seeking implementation of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Those Writ Petitions came to be disposed of on 25.11.2010. 4. Under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Section 95 contemplates, the owner or the occupier of the land, as the case may be, has to seek conversion of the land from agriculture to any other non-agriculture purpose. Therefore, one has to see whether these complainants had justification in approaching the Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner. No doubt, as on the date of filing of the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, they had locus standi to prefer the appeals. During the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, on 25.01.2010 and 05.03.20 10 they disposed of the properties by registered sale deeds in favour of third parties. By virtue of this act of the complainants, their right, title and interest in the property in question gets transferred to the purchasers. :4: Thereby, they had no semblance of right as on the date of disposal of the appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 5. On 28.07.2010 when the execution of the sale deed was very much within their knowledge, they ought to have informed the Tribunal that the appeals have become infructous when they were disposed of on 28.07.20 10. They got a favourable order in their favour by concealing disposal of the properties. They did not stop here, they went ahead by filing Writ Petition for implementation of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. They did not have any right to file the Writ Petition and as on the date of filing of the two Writ Petitions 68398/2010 and 68399/2010, neither they were entitled to seek implementation nor prosecute the writ petition by concealing true facts. They not only approached the Court, but also successful in taking positive directions to the concerned official of the respondent — Authority for implementation of the orders dated 28.07.20 10 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. ‘.5 :5: 6. This dubious act of the complainant deserves to be dealt with properly with a stem action. Contempt is not a forum for the parties for implementation of any order. It is a procedure to deal with the disobedience of the direction of the Court In that context, the complainant is required to bring to the notice of the Court, the disobedience of the order of the Court made by the respondent — accused and the Court in turn has to see whether the orders are complied with and dignity of the Court is maintained. 7. In that view of the matter, serious consequences for non-compliance of the order or direction of the Court are provided in the Contempt of Courts Act. Having regard to the serious consequences of disobedience when complainant approaches the Court complaining non-compliance or disobedience, a duty is cast upon to bring on record the correct State of affairs and the true facts. :6: 8. As already stated above, the complainants have not only concealed the facts before the Tribunal t and the learned Single Judge, but also they are dare enough to move the present contempt petition as well, which would only go to show the adacity on their part. They have approached the Courts and other Authorities without any semblance of sanctity to the procedure and respect to the Court. When they are complaining non compliance of directions, they are misrepresenting true facts before the Court. 9. ln that view of the matter, they are not only misleading the Court, but have wasted valuable judicial time. AU this has to be properly dealt with. 10. When the complainants have no locus standi to proceed with the appeals before the tribunal itself they should have withdrawn appeals. Instead of doing so, they have come to this stage. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the complainants has brought to our notice about the sale of the lands and submitted that he was not aware of the execution of sale deeds and such facts were concealed from him. 11. Under the circumstances, we opine that the contempt proceedings deserve to be dropped and it is a fit case to impose costs on the complainants. 12. Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- on each of the complainant and the same has to he deposited within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the same can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Sd/ JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE Rsh