An effective alternative remedy exists under the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal rendering the writ petition not maintainable.

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order bearing No.LND(N)CR:3/10-11 dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure-

AE) passed by the respondent No.2.

2. Heard, Sri. S. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents - State and Sri. B.V. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 - BBMP.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the rights of the parties has to be crystallized in a pending appeal before this Court in RFA.No.2196/2022 filed under Section 96 of CPC. It is also submitted that, when the matter is pending consideration before this Court, the respondents authorities have issued the impugned order at Annexure-AE and also learned counsel submitted that, the said impugned order at Annexure-AE was passed during the pendency of W.A.No.218/2008 at Annexure- Y, and as such, learned counsel contended that the respondents have no authority to issue the impugned order at Annexure-AE.

4. Per-contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents - State submitted that, the petitioners is having an efficacious remedy before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 49(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act , 1964, ('Act' for short).

5. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that, the impugned order at Annexure-AE passed by the respondent No.2 by exercising the power under Section 71 of the Act, the remedy available for the petitioners is to approach the competent authority under Section 49(c) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed Sd/-