N. VENKATACHALA, J.

( 1 ) ORDERS made by some of the Land tribunals constituted under the Karnata land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act'), have been impugned in these Writ Hetitions.

( 2 ) THE order impugned in W. P. FR. 18102/85 (LR) is the one made under section 48-C of the Principal Act, while the order impugned in W. P. FR. 18065/15 (LR) is another, made under Section 67 of that Act. The other orders impugned in the remaining writ petitions are those, made under Section 48-H of the said Act.

( 3 ) THE Registry of this Court has refused to register the said write petititions. That refusal of the Registry is based on its view that a remedy by way of appeal against eoch of the impugned orders, when has been made available to a party aggrieved thereby, under the Karnataka land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), which has come into force on december 6, 1985, that remedy should be regarded as a thresh-hold bar to a person who seeks to invoke the discretionary write jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india to obtain relief respecting such order. Learned Counsel appearing for the write petioners, who regarded the objection so raised by the Registry, as one devoid of substance, have sought the placing of the above write petitions before court for orders, in the matter. It is this situation, that has caused the Registry to plage the above write petitions before court, for deciding upon, what the Registry has called as "question of maintainability of writ petitions".

( 4 ) SRI M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, learned counsel, who led the arguments in the matter, urged at the outset, that the question relating to maintainability or otherwise of a writ petition presented to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against an order of a land Tribunal passed under the Principal act on the ground of non-exhaustion of a statutory remedy of appeal, respecting such order, if any, which had become available under the Ordinance, could not have been made a ground of. objection by the Registry for refusing to register such a writ petition, in that a decision in that regard could be taken only by a Court exercising the writ jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution. Further, he urged that the question of non-maintainability of the present writ petitions on the ground of non-exhaustion of a statutory remedy of appeal becoming available under the Ordinance against the impugned orders, could never arise, in that, as a matter of fact, no remedy by way of appeal against the impugned orders had become available under the Ordinance. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in some of the writ petitions as also, Sri l. M. Panduranga Swamy, HCGP, appearing for the State, supported the arguments of Shri Gopalakrishna Shetty.

( 5 ) IT is true; as pointed out by learned counsel that the Registry of this Court should not have refused registration of the writ petitions, in which orders of Land tribunals passed under the Principal Act had been impugned, on the ground of non-exhaustion of a statutory remedy of appeal, even if such remedy was available. It is so, for the reason that the refusal of discretionary relief sought respecting an order of a Tribunal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a Court, on the ground of non-exhaustion of an alternative stautory remedy of appeal available therefore, is a matter which has to necessarily depend upon the discretionary jurisdiction exercisable by such Court. However, having regard to the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners, as also the state, that the question of non-maintainability of the present writ petitions impugning the orders of Land Tribunals made under the Principal Act, on the ground that a statutory remedy by way of appeal against them had become available under the Ordinance, does not arise, in that, in fact, no remedy by way of appeal had been p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document