OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6 TH DAY OF DECEMBER v. ANJARIA

(BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB DIVISION MANDYA - 571 401

4. THE TAHSILDAR MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401 - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51049-DB WA No. 876 of 2024

5. REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA CIRCLE MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 401

6. MALLESH S/O SIDDAIAH AGED MAJOR CHIKKAMANDYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI GOPALAPURA POST MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 402 (SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No. 22576/2023 (KLR-RES) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B. Chandrachooda for the appellant and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1 to 4. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51049-DB WA No. 876 of 2024

2. The challenge in this appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 7th December, 2023 of learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition.

2.1 The order which is impugned is extracted as under, "Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent 1 to 5.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 24.10.2016 change of mutation passed by the respondent No.4. (Annexure-A), relating is having alternative and 4. The petitioner remedy under Section 136(2) efficacious Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In that view of the matter, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach competent authority under the said Act for redressal of his grievance. All the contention of the parties are kept open. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of."

3. Thus the petition is not entertained by learned Single Judge on the ground of availability of alternate remedy under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. What is recorded in paragraph 3 of the order is that the order under challenge was an order dated 24th October, 2016 passed by - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51049-DB WA No. 876 of 2024 respondent Nos.4-Tahasildar. This is erroneous and was an error on part of learned Single Judge to treat the said order to be the order challenged by the petitioner.

3.1 When the prayers in the writ petition are seen, the above aspect becomes evident. The prayer and the order challenged were as under, reproducing the prayers, the 2nd "(i) quash the impugned order dt. 14-07-2023 respondent Deputy passed by Commissioner in case R.P No.70/2022, under Annexure-K, order passed by respondent Assistant Commissioner dt. 21-03- 2022 in R. Misc. No: 431/2016, at Annexure-F and the endorsement dated 24-10-2016 issued by the 4th respondent, Tahsildar at Annexure-A as illegal. (ii) direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of sy.no.538/1B."

4. When learned advocate for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that the alternative remedy was not available against the order impugned in the petition, and when learned advocate for the respondents was confronted with the said aspect, he was at his receiving end to admit the position of law that the alternate remedy was not available. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51049-DB WA No. 876 of 2024

5. There is no gainsaying that in respect of the order of the Deputy Commissioner which confirms the other orders including the order of the Tahasildar, alternate remedy is not available. The order which was impugned was passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner in case RP No.70 of 2022 against which the only remedy for the petitioner was to file the writ petition. Any other statutory remedy was not available. The order of the Tahasildar could be said to be merged with the said order.

5.1 In the aforesaid view, learned Single Judge disposed of the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by requiring the petitioner to approach competent authority under the aforesaid Act, learned Single Judge committed the manifest error. The said direction stands in ignorance of law.

5.2 In the aforesaid view, the proper recourse is to remand the case for decision afresh by learned Single Judge on merits. Accordingly, the proceedings of Writ Petition No.22576 of 2023 is remitted back to learned Single Judge to decide afresh by addressing controversy on merits. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51049-DB WA No. 876 of 2024

6. In order to enable learned Single Judge to decide the petition afresh, as above, the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 is set aside. It is expected that learned Single Judge would decide the petition expeditiously by adverting to merits in respect of which, however, this Court has not expressed any opinion nor it has gone into the merits of the case of the either side.

7. The present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. In view of disposal of the appeal, interlocutory applications would not survive and they stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16