Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.13970 OF 2023 (KLR-REG)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. MUNIREDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.31, JOGI COLONY, MADIWALA CHECK POST BENGALURU-560095.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER NOEL A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Court of Karnataka BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009.
3. SMT. RAMADEVI B.M. W/O LATE C BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE C BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. SMT. DIVYA B.
D/O LATE C BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 6. SRI SATHISH KUMAR B S/O LATE C BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.7,7TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU-560070.
7. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE KANDAYA BHAVANA, KG ROAD BENGALURU - 560009.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R7;
SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKASH V. T., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13/06/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RRT/SB/CR/95/2022-23 WHICH IS ANNEXURE-J BY RESTORING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated
13.06.2023 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.2. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner is having alternate remedy under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court is having jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India to exercise power and to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS, arising out of SLP(C) No.8867 OF
2022 and contends that principles of natural justice has been curtailed to the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration that the impugned order is passed by the respondent No.2 in furtherance of the letter dated 01.09.2022 issued by respondent No.7, and having taken note of the statutory provision contained under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which is an efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, it is open for the petitioner to exhaust the said remedy.
6. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment referred to above, it is settled principle in law that wherever an efficacious remedy is available for the petitioner, in as much as, the statute itself mandates for the parties to avail such remedy before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India and further, considering the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. DIAMOND AND GEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2013 SC 1241, and in the case of STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. EHSAN & ANOTHER, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887, wherein it is held that only in exceptional cases the Court may interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India and if an efficacious alternate remedy is available for the applicant, such applicant be relegated to exhaust such remedy provided under the Statute itself before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner to urge all the contentions urged in this writ petition before the competent authority.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
