The court held that recent amendments to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provide an avenue for appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's orders, making thus the writ petition inappropriate.

ORDER :

R. DEVDAS, J.

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 72. Learned counsel, Ms.G.K.Bhavana, has entered appearance for contesting respondent Nos.3 and 4. Notice to respondent Nos.5 to 71 may not be necessary for the following reasons.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by virtue of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A dated 25.01.2024, for the first time directions were issued to the Tahsildar to enter the names of those persons who were granted occupancy rights at the hands of the Land Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the Land Tribunal is said to have passed an order on 07.08.1981 and nothing is said about the delay and laches on the part of the respondents herein, who sought entry of their names pursuant to an order passed by the Land Tribunal in the year, 1981. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were residing in the United States of America and they were not aware of the subsequent developments. The petitioners are seeking to raise a challenge to the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, which, even otherwise, does not contain any details of the extent of land conferring occupancy rights in respect of the applicants therein. That being the position, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to notice these factual discrepancies and should have set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner while directing the parties to approach the Land Tribunal to get a clarification regarding the extent of lands where occupancy rights were conferred in respect of the applicants.

-

3. Per contra, learned counsel Ms.Aparna, appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that by virtue of the amendment brought to subsection 1 of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') by Act No. 6/2025, which came into effect from 10.01.2025, an appeal remedy is provided to challenge an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the writ petition may be dismissed on this ground while directing the petitioners to approach the Tribunal.

-

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would request for an interim order of stay in respect of the impugned orders while granting reasonable time to the petitioners to approach the tribunal.

5. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, for a period of eight weeks there shall be an interim order of stay of the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B to enable the petitioners to move the Tribunal by filing an appeal.

6. The Tribunal shall consider the time spent by the petitioners before this Court while considering an application for condonation of delay.

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.