Lakshmamma & Anr. Vs. B.K. Bhattacharya & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 288-295 of 1999
In
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11550-11557 of 1991
In
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11550-11557 of 1991
Petitioner: Lakshmamma & Anr.
Respondent: B.K. Bhattacharya & Ors.
Apeal: Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 288-295 of 1999
In
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11550-11557 of 1991
In
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11550-11557 of 1991
Judges: M.B. SHAH & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 12, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
a) Article 136 – Possession of land in question already handed over to petitioners – Mutation entries posted. Held that nothing survives in special leave petitions.
(Para 1)
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Contempt of Court, 1971
b) Section 2 – Possession of land handed over during pendency of SLPs – Mutation recorded in November 1999 – Contempt by inter-venors as land transferred in 1998. Held that petitions are not dealt with as not required.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. On the basis of the Order dated 2.5.2000 learned Counsel for the petitioners has verified the fact that possession of the land in question is already handed over to the petitioners. However, it is his con-tention that in the revenue record, names of the petitioners are not mentioned. As against this, Mr. Rao, the learned senior Coun-sel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that on 30.11.1999, mutation entry for the same has been posted
and the copy of the said mutation entry is handed over to the learned Coun-
sel for the petitioners. In this view of
the matter, these petitions would not survive.
2. Mr. P. Krishnamoorthi, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors submits that the petitioners had alrea-dy transferred the aforesaid land in favour of one Mr. C.M. Abra-him in the year 1998 and the transfer is in violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In our view, in these contempt peti-tions filed by the petitioners, the contentions raised by the intervenors are not required to be dealt with and hence are not dealt with.
3. In the result, the contempt petitions stand disposed of ac-cordingly and contempt notices shall stand discharged.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. On the basis of the Order dated 2.5.2000 learned Counsel for the petitioners has verified the fact that possession of the land in question is already handed over to the petitioners. However, it is his con-tention that in the revenue record, names of the petitioners are not mentioned. As against this, Mr. Rao, the learned senior Coun-sel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that on 30.11.1999, mutation entry for the same has been posted
and the copy of the said mutation entry is handed over to the learned Coun-
sel for the petitioners. In this view of
the matter, these petitions would not survive.
2. Mr. P. Krishnamoorthi, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors submits that the petitioners had alrea-dy transferred the aforesaid land in favour of one Mr. C.M. Abra-him in the year 1998 and the transfer is in violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In our view, in these contempt peti-tions filed by the petitioners, the contentions raised by the intervenors are not required to be dealt with and hence are not dealt with.
3. In the result, the contempt petitions stand disposed of ac-cordingly and contempt notices shall stand discharged.
