:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18Th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.SABHAHIT AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO C.C.C. NO.2080/2010 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. TULASABAI, W/O. LAXMANSAB HABIB, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GRAIN MARKET, KAMBARSAL, GADAG TALUK, DIST: GADAG. COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. R.K.HAflI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SM. JYOTIRLINGAM, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI. R. GOPAL RAO, THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHOLOGY, PALACE GROUND, MYSORE-570 001. 3. SMT. POTNIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. S. :2: S 4. SRI. V.N.PRASAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG. ...RESPONDENTS/flccoseI))t (BY SRI. C.S.PATIL, AGA FOR Ri, R3 AND R4 SERVED) ccwrectecl i(dt oracr of LkjOwbe( dte. 2S 1 oLaOI&. THIS CCC FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT AND ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES OF COMMITFING THE CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONELE COURT IN W.P.NO.60581/2010 (LA.RES.) DATED 08.03.2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, V.G.SABHAHIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.60581/2010 (LA-RES) dated 08.03.2010, wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner regarding illegal acquisition / encroachment of the property in Survey No.265/i measuring 2 acre 26 guntas, as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. :3: 2. The order of the learned Single Judge was passed on 08.03.2010 and notice was issued to the respondents and counter affidavit is filed alleging that the Order passed by this Court has been complied with. The copy of the endorsement dated 24.04.2010, which has been passed within time granted by this Court, has been produced wherein the representation of the petitioner is rejected. 3. We are satisfied that there is compliance of the Order issued by this Court and there is no case of willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the complainant to challenge the endorsement dated 24.04.2010 on merits, in accordance with law. Sd! 3UDGE JUDGE