IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO. 33083 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. HANUMAIAH T

S/O LATE THIMMANNA

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

R/AT NO.93/1, GOWDANPALYA MAIN ROAD

GOWDANPALYA, BANGALORE SOUTH

SUBRAMANYAPURA POST

BANGALORE - 560 061

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. THE SPECIAL THASILDAR

by JUANITA

BANGALORE SOUTH

THEJESWINI

Location: HIGH KANDHAYA BHAVANA

COURT OF

KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009

KARNATAKA

2. REVENUE INSPECTOR

HEMMIGEPURA CIRCLE

KENGERI, MYSORE ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 060.

3. T. MUNIMARAPPA

S/O LATE C. THIMANNA

R/AT NO.24, 9^TH MAIN ROAD

VINAYAKA NAGARA

KENGERI UPANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 060 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15-07-2025 MADE IN RRT/VIVADHA/304/2025 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate raises a preliminary objection that the order impugned is an order passed by respondent No.1-Tahsildar, invoking the powers conferred under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). If the petitioner is aggrieved of the same, the appeal remedy is provided under Section 136(2) of the Act and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.R.S.Ravi, appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier such an application filed by respondent No.3 was rejected at the hands of the Tahsildar by order dated 16.04.2025, while noticing that a suit filed in O.S.No.1047/2016 is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that once such an order is passed by the Tahsildar, it is impermissible for him to have passed the impugned order without taking note of the orders already passed rejecting such application.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the objection raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate is required to be upheld. Similar grounds as are raised before this Court can be raised before the Assistant Commissioner, since an appeal remedy is available for the petitioner in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner.

Sd/-

(R DEVDAS)

JUDGE rv