Contempt Of Courts Act | Disputed Questions Of Fact Cannot Be Examined; State Not Obligated To Remove Encroachments Existing Prior To Taking Possession: Karnataka High Court

"This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be subject matter of a contempt petition. However, the State authorities should remove the illegal constructions which have been put up after 07.12.2017... However, the State has no duty/obligation to remove any construction which was put up before 07.12.2017." Karnataka High Court, in an order dated October 14, 2026, held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated within contempt jurisdiction, clarifying that while the State is bound to remove encroachments that arose after it took possession of land, it owes no obligation under contempt proceedings to clear unauthorized constructions that existed prior to its assumption of possession.

 A Division Bench comprising Justice D. K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan observed this while disposing of a contempt petition seeking enforcement of a writ court direction to redeliver land to a charitable trust.

The contempt proceedings arose from a Single Judge order dated June 30, 2021, which directed the revenue authorities to redeliver lands to the complainant, Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust, after quashing land ceiling and conversion rejection orders. The complainant initiated contempt alleging non-compliance, but subsequent judicial proceedings upheld the Bangalore Development Authority's acquisition of 272 acres of the land up to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the dispute narrowed down to the handing over of a balance extent of 32 acres and 7 guntas, of which a portion was alleged to be encroached upon.

The primary question before the court was whether the State authorities could be held guilty of willful contempt for failing to clear encroachments and deliver possession of the entire balance land. The court was also called upon to determine the extent of the State's legal obligation to demolish unauthorized structures when the timeline of their construction remained disputed.

Disputed Questions Of Fact Fall Outside Contempt Jurisdiction

The Division Bench underscored that proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India are not meant for resolving contested factual controversies between parties. Addressing the controversy surrounding the timeline of the unauthorized constructions on the land, the bench noted the stark disagreement between the parties regarding whether the illegal structures were put up before or after the State took possession on December 7, 2017.

The court emphatically held that such factual disputes cannot be resolved within the summary compass of contempt jurisdiction. The bench stated that Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant-Trust disputed the fact that illegal constructions were put up before December 7, 2017, but ruled that this was a disputed question of fact which cannot be the subject matter of a contempt petition.

State Obligated To Clear Only Post-Possession Encroachments

The bench delineated the boundaries of the State's accountability regarding land held in its custody. It observed that because the State assumed possession of the subject property pursuant to three mahazars executed on December 7, 2017, its fiduciary duty to protect and redeliver the land unencumbered applies strictly from the date it took actual physical custody.

The court noted that if any unauthorized construction was put up after that date, it remained the bounden duty of the State authorities to remove it, whereas pre-existing unauthorized constructions could not be fastened as a liability upon the State in contempt proceedings.

"If any unauthorised construction has been put up, it is the duty of the State Authorities to remove the same. However, the State has no duty/obligation to remove any construction which was put up before 07.12.2017."

Refusal To Accept Undisputed Extent Not Justified

Scrutinizing the records, the bench observed that the State authorities had repeatedly demonstrated bona fide compliance by attempting to deliver 16 acres and 15 guntas of encroachment-free land out of the total 32 acres and 7 guntas. The court noted that notices were issued and three separate attempts were made on July 31, 2026, September 15, 2026, and September 28, 2026, to hand over the undisputed portion, but the representatives of the Trust refused to take possession.

The bench remarked that mahazars drawn on these dates evidenced the Trust's refusal to accept possession of the clear lands measuring 16 acres 15 guntas across various survey numbers. The bench held that the complainant could not allege deliberate defiance against the authorities while simultaneously refusing to accept delivery of the undisputed parcel.

Time-Bound Directions And Closure Of Contempt Proceedings

Balancing the rights of the parties, the court directed the State authorities to carry out the demolition of all unauthorized structures that surfaced after December 7, 2017 within a strict timeline of one month. The court also commanded the Trust to accept immediate possession of the available 16 acres and 15 guntas and subsequently receive the balance land following the removal of post-possession encroachments.

Finding that no willful disobedience or contumacious conduct survived in light of the compliance efforts and directions issued, the Division Bench discharged the contempt notices against the respondent authorities and closed the contempt petition.

The High Court thus disposed of the contempt petition by holding that contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded to adjudicate contested dates of encroachment, confining the State's restitutionary duty strictly to encroachments occurring during its period of custody. The ruling settles that a contemnor authority cannot be mandated in contempt proceedings to remove third-party constructions that pre-dated the assumption of official possession.

Date of Decision: 14 October 2026