H V Rajathilak Pandith vs State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2018

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

H V Rajathilak Pandith vs State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2018

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

                          1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

              W.P. NO.4485/2018(LR-RES)

BETWEEN:

H V RAJATHILAK PANDITH
S/O LATE H K VENKATESH PANDITH
AGE 56 YEARS,
R/ INAM AGRAHARA MUCHANDI
TALAGUNDA HOBLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577428

                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001

2.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGAR SUB DIVISION,
SAGAR-577401

3.SMT H N JAYAMMA
W/O NAGARAJ PANDIT,
AGE: MAJOR
                         2


HINDUPURAM CITY
ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT-575204

4.TOLACHA NAIKA
S/O CHOWDANAIKA, AGE: MAJOR
R/O THARALAGHATTA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214

5.BHEEMA NAIKA
S/O SAKRANAIKA AGE: MAJOR
R/O THARALAGHATTA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214

6.TAHASILDAR,
SAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.

                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)


    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:9.11.2017 PASSED BY THE
ASSISTANT   COMMISSIONER,     SAGAR   SUB-DIVISION,
SAGAR MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D BY ISSUING A WRIT OF
THE NATURE ETC.


    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
                               3


                           ORDER

Petitioner has assailed order dated 09/11/2017 (Annexure-D) passed by the second respondent- Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub-Division, Sagar, purportedly under the provisions of Section 79B read with Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

2. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, then he could avail an alternative efficacious appellate remedy under Section 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal.

3. In this view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternative appellate remedy, if so advised.

In the event, there is a delay in filing such appeal, then the pendency of the writ petition before this court may be taken note of.

Office to return certified copies of the impugned order and other documents appended to the writ petition to petitioner's counsel forthwith, subject to filing of photocopies of the same for the purpose of record.

Sd/-

JUDGE Msu

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court