IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8412 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MR NAVEEN KUMAR M S/O LATE JEEVANDHAR KUMAR, AGED 70 YEARS, #NO 4-130, HOSAMANE HOUSE, THENKA YADAPADAVU, D.K. DIST- 574164 (SR. CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT AVAILED)

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. N SUKUMAR JAIN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENAGALURU-560001 REP BY SECRETARY Digitally signed by 2. ASST COMMISSIONER KIRAN KUMAR R MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION Location:

MANGALORE D.K.DIST HIGH COURT OF PIN 575001 KARNATAKA

3. MRS. LEELA DEVI W/O LATE B. GUNAPAL AGED 98 YEARS NO.3/4 SEEMA NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE YAYYEDII MANGALORE D.K. DIST-575008

4. MR. JAYARAJ KUMAR, S/O JEEVANDHAR KUMAR, AGED 69 YEARS NO. R/AT 748/A, 16TH MAIN NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD MYSORE-570023

5. MRS. SUMATHI W/O LATE K B SHREYAMSA BALLAL, AGED 66 YEARS NO. R/AT 6-42-420, PRATHIKSHA JAIN PETE, BETKERI ROAD, PRANTNYA VILLAGE MOODBIDRI D.K. DIST-574227

6. MR. PRAKASH KUMAR, S/O LATE JEEVANDHAR KUMAR, AGED 65 YEARS NO. R/AT 6-42B, BETKERI ROAD, BETKERI, PRANTNYA VILLAGE MOODBIDRI P.O, D.K. DIST-574227

7. MRS. RAJANI M W/O AJITH PRASAD, D/O JEEVANDHAR KUMAR, AGED 62 YEARS NO. R/AT MANIYANKODE, KALPETTA, MUTTIL NORTH WAYANAD KERALA STATE - 673122

8. MRS. SUMANA NITHIN BHANDARY W/O LATE NITIN BHANDARY, AGED 61 YEARS NO.110/111, DOORDARSHAN NAGAR NEHRU NAGAR, BELGUAM-590010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD. 03.03.2025 IN CDS. R.R.T.S.R.138/2023 RD-455383 PRODUCED AS ANNX-G PASSED BY THE R-2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

1. The order impugned is an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act').

2. In my view, as against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act, the statute has provided a Revision under Section 136(3) of the Act. The petitioner would, therefore, have to avail of the said remedy. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of the Revisional remedy available under Section 136(3) of the Act.

3. If such a Revision is filed and an interim order is sought for, the same shall be considered by the Deputy Commissioner expeditiously.

4. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(N S SANJAY GOWDA)

JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30