BENCH v. (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3)
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, EQUITY
Outcome
Dismissed
This petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 136(2)
Judgment
1. SHRI. ANANDRAO S/O NARSINHRAO GHORPADE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: 696, SULGAON ROAD, KHODAVE MAL, AT/POST: VANDUR, TQ: KAGAL, DIST: KOLHAPUR-416001, STATE: MAHARASHTRA, R/BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SHRI. DAULATRAO.
2. SHRI. KHANDERAO S/O NARSINGARAO GHORPADE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHIVAJI CHOUK, SARKAR WADA, MADABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001, R/BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SHRI. DAULATRAO.
3. SHRI. DAULATRAO S/O NARSINGARAO GHORPADE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHIVAJI CHOUK, SARKAR WADA, MADABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.3. (BY SRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH 12:17:19 +0530 … PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9084 WP No. 103721 of 2024
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
THE THASILDHAR, ATHNI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
SHRI. MARUTI S/ O LIMBAJI BAJABALE, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
SHRI. APPA S/O LIMBAJI BAJABALE, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
SHRI. VISHNU S/O BABU BAJABALE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
SHRI. UDAY S/O BABU BAJABALE, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
SHRI. PANDURANG S/O BABU BAJABALE, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
SMT. SUVARNA W/O ASHOK KHUTTE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: LONAR GALLI, ISLAMPUR VILLAGE, TQ: VALAVA, DIST: SANGALI-416416, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3) … RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9084 WP No. 103721 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.06.2024 BRG.NO.RA/90/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for
2. respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Notice to respondent Nos.4 to 9 is dispensed, as this court is not inclined to accept the writ petition and pass any favourable order in favour of the petitioners, in view of an alternative remedy being available to the petitioners.
4. The petitioners have filed this petition questioning the orders passed by the 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner dated 21.6.2024 vide Annexure-G.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 is against the principles of natural justice and the order is passed in haste. Therefore, the writ petition would be maintainable. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9084 WP No. 103721 of 2024
6. learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation V/s. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in (1998) 8 SCC and also relies on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R.Raghu V/s. State of Karnataka and ors. Disposed of on 3.2.2015 in W.P.No.52691/2014. Both the judgments would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners.
Operative part
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is questioning the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short the Act) vide Annexure-G only on the ground that the principles of natural justice has not been followed. The other ground lack of jurisdiction are not made here. Hence, I do not find any need to go into the merits of the matter with regard to non-following of principles of natural justice as the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayamma and others V/s. the State of Karnataka, rep., by its Secretary, Department of Revenue and others, reported in ILR 2020 Karnataka 1414 has clearly laid down the law with regard to challenge being made against the orders passed by the revenue authorities especially under Section 136(2) of the Act. When there is a revision available by way of an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, the writ petition would not be maintainable. Therefore, without - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9084 WP No. 103721 of 2024 adverting to the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER This petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2 before the appropriate authority and on such a revision or application being filed before the appropriate authority, the same shall be considered within a within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- JUDGE VB CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s. 136(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.