IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

C.C.C.(CIVIL) NO 1147 /2014

BETWEEN

Sri.C.Nandeesh …Complainant

AND

Dr.Vishal, IAS
and others …Accused/Respondents

REJOINDER STATEMENT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT SERVED IN THE OPEN COURT ON
21.10.2014.

The complainant who has quite carefully gone through the

contents of the affidavit mentioned above, filed by the
proposed 5th respondent accused, Sri D.B.Natesh who was
formerly the Tahsildar, Chikballapur Taluk, Chikballapur,
quite respectfully craves the kind leave of this Hon’ble Court
to replicate the same through this Rejoinder Statement, as
follows:

1. At the very outset it is respectfully submitted that the

affidavit is lacking of truth and substance. Therefore,
this Rejoinder Statement is filed with reference to the
affidavit filed by the proposed 5th accused.
2. The specific case pleaded in the application to implead
Sri D.B.Natesh as an additional Respondent as a proper
party to the instant Contempt Petition, is based on the
facts placed before this Hon’ble Court in respect to the
final order of WP 6969/2013 (KLR-RES) and the
proposed Respondent accused deliberately,
contumaciously and maliciously violated orders of this
Hon’ble Court contumaciously by recommending for
acquisition of complainant’s land in survey No.108/P2
to ashraya scheme in ashraya/CR/2/2013-14 dated
29.06.2013, along with a sketch. The subjected and
resulted in multiple litigations and loss of legally held
personal property of a humble and ordinary farmer.
Hence he has approached this Hon’ble court to proceed
against and punish the contemnors for their deliberate-
conduct. The proposed respondent who has
perpetuated the gross and deliberate contempt cannot
seek to justify his contemptuous action on the ground
that he has been transferred from Chikballapur Taluk.
Further, the contemnors on record having pleaded that
the proposed respondent was primarily responsible for
the overt and contumacious acts complained of, this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to suggest to the
complainant that the proposed respondent be
impleaded as an additional respondent.
3. Sufficient information about the Hon’ble Court order
was given to the accused to promptly comply with the
orders and purge the contempt committed by the
accused, Representations dated 01.01.2013,
25.06.2013, 09. 07.2013 and 14.08.2013 all enclosed
as Documents A,B,C & D were submitted. But, far
from availing of the same, the proposed accused have
adopted various arum twisting dilatory and
contumacious tactics to overlook and mislead the
higher authorities too. He also managed Assistant
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and pushed
his malicious recommendation dated 29.06.2013 and
obtained favorable orders by suppressing the further
interim orders dated 23.09.2013, 8.1.2014, 19.2.2014,
7.3.2014 and 19.3.2014 passed in WP 41330/2013.
Non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court
shakes the very foundation of our judicial system and
undermines the rule of law, which requires to be
honoured and protected. This is essential to maintain
faith and confidence of the ordinary people of this
country in the judiciary.

4. The Statement contained in paragraph 2 of the affidavit

that the survey No.108 of Kakalchinta Village, Mandikal
Hobli, Chikballapur Taluk in total 28 acres 25 guntas,
 Out of which an extant of 4 acres of land has been
granted in favor of Sri Subanna s/o Sri Ramaiah is
knowingly false. In fact, Sri Subanna S/o Ramaiah had
purchased in public auction by paying upset price to
the government and obtained Purchase Certificate in
the form of Saguvali Cheeti on 30.08.1972.

The Statement contained in the second part of the

paragraph 2 the proposed accused then Thasildar is
knowingly submitting false extent of 4.39 acres
remaining and out of which 8 acres reserved for Sri
Morarji Desai Residential School and balance of 3 acres
26 guntas belongs to State Government. This shows the
callousness of the proposed accused being a custodian
of Taluk lands. In fact, the table show the fact as exists
and expose the highhanded malicious act on the part of
the proposed accused.

The land Status as on 2009-10 11.26gu Remarks

1 108/ P1 2. 20 gu 0.00 2.20 As per present RTC the land to
be allocated. 2014-15 RTC
enclosed as Document.E
2 108 8. 00 0.00 8.00 BCM Residential School allotted
through MR 16/2009-10.
Total land to be reserved for 10.20gu Lands disposed as on date
allocation as per RTC
Left over land in survey No. 1.06 gu The land of 1 acre 6 guntas
108 of Kakalachinta is only 1 need to be identified by
acre and 06 guntas measuring all the survey
Numbers for encroachments
and Kharab.
 Surprisingly, the then Tahsildar and proposed accused
without any land available recommends (2 acres 36
guntas for ashraya scheme and records the availability
of coconut trees and borewell in 20 guntas) to the
Deputy Commissioner and obtained final order
committing a blunder and creating conflicts for
innocent farmer’s inspite of Hon’ble court orders
violating deliberately.

5. The Statement contained in paragraph 3 of the affidavit

is also knowingly false. The proposed accused
frustrated based on my continues representations
attached to this rejoinder as Documents A,B,C & D. The
proposed accused out of frustration assumed on his
own without going in to facts and not providing
opportunity to explain the facts proceeded to conclude
that Smt Narasamma w/o Narayanamma (Narasamma
is not transgender to have women as husband)
committed a violation under grant rule by securing 3
acres land from Sri Subbanna on 23.06.1980 and state
the same is purchased by complainant on 18.08.2005.

The fact is Sri Subanna S/O Ramaiah auction

purchaser of 4 acres land in survey No 108 is a elder
son of Smt Narasamma W/O Ramaiah (Not
Narayanamma) and on family partition registered deed
511 dated 23.06.1980 transferred his rights 3 acres in
survey No.108 and 1 acre in survey No.32 of
Kakalachinta village through a another registered deed
512 dated 23.06.1980. The revenue authorities through
MR No.11/1980 accepted on 03.10.1980 issued RTC in
survey No. 108/p2 for 3 acres and RTC in survey No. 32
for 1 acre in the name of Narasamma w/o Ramaiah
there is no sale of land to any outsider till 2005 for
about 33 years and the land rested only in the family. I
submit the same land of 3 acres from Smt Narasamma
W/O Ramaiah was purchased on 18.08.2005, as
108/P2 phodied as 219 allegedly created a bogus
number without their being a physical phodi, the
vendor handed over the possession as enjoyed in survey
No 108/P2. I further submit that as per the boundaries
handed over was fenced and developed as Horticulture
garden with farm house and for water by digging
borewell and obtained 10 KV power under Own Your
Transformer scheme officially by paying necessary fee
and the connection is RR No. RIP-1829 serviced on
14.11.2007.

It is significant to notice that the statutory appeal

25/2010 pending before DDLR was dragged beyond the
direction and order of this Hon’ble court in WP
6969/2013 and continues interference with the
 peaceful possession suspected collusion between the
proposed accused and the DDLR, complainant filed an
RTI application dated 17.08.2013 seeking the phodi
documents for survey No 108/P2 and the Tahsildar
issued an endorsement collected personally by signing
outward register on 16.09.2013. The endorsement
issued by the Tahsildar confirms that the phodi for
survey No 108/P2 of Smt Narasamma w/o Ramaiah for
3 acres not conducted, hence the possession as per the
schedules of survey No 108/P2 enjoyed by the
complainant cannot be questioned by the revenue
authorities. The revenue authorities have to necessarily
conduct phodi as per the developed enjoyment and
bifurcate cultivable 3 acres land and incorporate
Kharab as per KLR Act exists in the survey number.
The RTI application and the Endorsement are attached
as Document F & G.

6. The Statement contained in paragraph 4 & 5 of the

affidavit is intended by the proposed respondent just to
confuse and escape the clutches of the Law the
proposed accused respondent completely involved
behind the scene by instigating and guiding the
accused mentioned in both FIR’s. The recommendation
and the Sketch prepared specifically highlighted in the
bottom that one Nandeesh (Complainant) has borewell
 and grown trees and plants and the sketch prepared in
front of Revenue inspector and village accountant are
party to it and signed the sketch. The same accused
instigated the villagers of Kamganahalli and
Muthugadahalli villages, posterior to the appointment of
the Commissioner, and had brought more than 75
villagers of the said villages personally to influence the
Commissioner and managed the Commissioner to go
beyond the order of this Hon’ble Court. The proposed
accused himself stated in the affidavit that he is
transferred and relived from Chickkaballapur, Inspite of
this the proposed accused was present physically forced
commissioner to record all villagers statements and
volunteered to recorded his own statement beyond the
order of this court. This clearly exposes the proposed
accused direct involvement and personal interest of the
land recommendation. It’s painful to submit that the
Commissioner report is available with all the accused
advocates and no access to the report for the
complainant speaks volumes, its gross injustice and
clearly against to the principles of natural justice. The
report is not even discussed by the Hon’ble Court.

7. The Statement contained in paragraph 6 & 7 of the

affidavit is just a slap on his own face, The proposed
accused was very much aware of this Hon’ble court
orders passed in WP 6969/2013 and in WP
41330/2013 through the various representations along
with the copy of the orders submitted dated
25.06.2013, 09.07.2013, 25.09.2013, 24.02.2014,
22.03.2014 and the proposed accused willfully
disobeyed this Hon’ble court order exposed by Assistant
Commissioner letter dated 12.07.2013 and his own
endorsement dated 27.07.2013 confirm that the
recommendation of the Ashraya Scheme is sent to
Assistant Commissioner second time on 23.07.2013 in
spite of the WP 6969/2013 order was ‘the petitioners
possession shall not be interfered with’ in force and
communicated on 25.06.2013 to the proposed accused.
The endorsement dated 27.07.2013 issued by the
accused and The letter of AC dated 12.07.2013 is
enclosed as Documents H & J. The proposed accused
is a habitual contemnor and has no fear of law. The
proposed accused is not made any statements on the
Para 3 of the Annexures Q & R. Annexure Q is also
stayed by this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Contempt Petition (civil) 83 of 2005 ruling
observed “In our democratic polity under the
Constitution based on the concept of ‘Rule of law’ which
we have adopted and given to ourselves and which
serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic
system. THE LAW IS SUPREME.
 Everyone, whether individually or collectively, is
unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever
he may be, however high he is, he is under the law. No
matter how powerful he is and how rich he may be.

Disobedience of this Court’s order strikes at the very

root of the rule of law on which the judicial system
rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic
society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law.
Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central
pillar of the democratic State. If the Judiciary is to
perform its duties and functions effectively and remain
true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted
to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be
respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very
corner stone of our constitutional scheme will give way
and with it will disappear the rule of law and the
civilized life in the society. That is why it is imperative
and invariable that Court’s orders are to be followed
and complied with.” (refer T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad's case [(2006) 5 SCC 1]”.

8. The Statement contained in paragraph 8 of the affidavit

is one more misleading statement. The court most take
a note of the 2 RTC enclosed for survey No.108
 posterior and anterior to the order dated 30.01.2014 is
enclosed as Documents K & L. The difference in the
posterior RTC still recorded rights for ashraya as per
order dated 14.08.2014.

9. The Statement contained in paragraph 9 of the affidavit

is a self-serving statement and intended for misleading
the Hon’ble court. The complainants land was handed
over to the Gram panchayat by the accused and
K.M.Manjunath is none other than ex-president of the
Gram Panchayat, Having committed contempt of this
Hon’ble court willfully, deliberately violating orders of
this Hon’ble court in WP 6969/2013 and WP
41330/2013 now taking shelter of K.M.Manjunath
cannot be accepted.

10. The Statement contained in paragraph 10 of the

affidavit is totally false. The proposed accused never
followed the orders of the highest court of the state and
also never given respect to the judicial process of this
country. The proposed accused was a Tahsildar and a
party in the complainant appeal No.25/2010 before the
Deputy Director of land records challenging the phodi
and the accused inspite of several reminders to file
objections, proposed accused ignored to file objections
and intentionally avoided to participate in the process.
11. For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that
this Hon’ble court be pleased, to allow the impleading
application and make the proposed accused as
necessary and fit party, for upholding the majesty of
law, and for protecting the constitutional rights of the
subjects of the state to proceed with the action in the
above mentioned contempt of court petition, in
accordance with Article 215 of the Constitution of India,
read with sections 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and the rules made there under.

12. It is respectfully submitted accordingly.

Bangalore
Date: 26.11.2014 Advocate for the Complainant
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

C.C.C.(CIVIL) NO 1147 /2014

BETWEEN

Sri.C.Nandeesh …Complainant

AND

Dr.Vishal, IAS
and others …Accused/Respondents

AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING THE REJOINDER STATEMENT

I, C.Nandeesh aged 56 years, s/o Sri Chikkanna, residing at

No.165, 208 SFS, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore-560 064,
Karnataka State, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as follows:
1. I am the complainant in the aforementioned petition
and am fully conversant with the facts of the case.

2. I have quite carefully gone through the counter affidavit

dated 21.10.2014 filed by the proposed accused Sri
D.B.Natesh. Similarly I have also gone through the contents
of the documents filed with the affidavit dated 21.10.2014.
Having gone through the same, I have got prepared the
accompanying Rejoinder Statement, which has been so
prepared by my learned counsel, on my instructions.

3. I state that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 12 of the

accompanying Rejoinder Statement are all true to the best of
my personal knowledge and sincere belief.

4. I swear accordingly.

Bangalore
Date:26:11:2014 DEPONENT

No. of corrections
Identified by me

Advocate.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

C.C.C.(CIVIL) NO 1147 /2014

BETWEEN

Sri.C.Nandeesh …Complainant

AND

Dr.Vishal, IAS
and others …Accused/Respondents

INDEX

Sl. Particulars Page

No Nos.
1 Rejoinder Statement filed by the Complainant on 1-14
proposed Respondent Affidavit.
2 Document-A Copy of the letter dated 01.1.2013 15-17
3 Document-B Copy of the order dated 25.6.2013 18
4 Document-C Copy of the letter dated 09.7.2013 19
5 Document-D Copy of the letter dated 14.8.2013 20
6 Document-E RTC Sy No.108/P1 dated 26.7.2014 21
7 Document-F Copy of the RTI application 17.8.2013 22
8 Document-G Endorsement on RTI dated 16.9.2013 23
9 Document-H Tahsildar endorsement dated 27.7.2013 24
10 Document-J A.C. letter to Tahsildar dated 12.7.2013 25
11 Document-K RTC anterior to DC order 30.01.2014 26
12 Document-L RTC dated 16.9.2014 posterior to order 27
withdrawal 14.8.2014

Bangalore Advocate for the Complainant

Date: 26.11.2014