Sri. Chinnaswami vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2018

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Chinnaswami vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2018

Bench: B.V. Nagarathna

                            1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

                        BEFORE

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

WRIT PETITION Nos.50172 & 50173 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

Between:

1.     Sri Chinnaswami
       S/o. Late Mahadevappa,
       Aged: 41 years
       Occ: Agriculture
       R/at Door No.59, Uttanahalli Village
       Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk
       Mysuru District - 570 010.

2.     Sri Chennabasava
       S/o. Late Mahadevappa,
       Aged: 38 years
       Occ: Agriculture,
       R/at Door No.59, Uttanahalli Village
       Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk
       Mysuru District - 570 010.
                                              ...Petitioners

(By Sri. Prasanna V.R., Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Rep. by its Secretary,
       Dept. of Revenue, M.S. Building,
       Bengaluru - 560 001.
                             2




2.   The Deputy Commissioner,
     Mysore District,
     Mysore- 570 001.

3.   The Tahsildar,
     Mysore Taluk,
     Mysore District - 570 001.                .
                                           .. Respondents

(By Sri.R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, AGA for R1 to R3)


     These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash
the endorsement dated 07.05.2015 issued by
Respondent No.3 at Annexure-A and etc.

     These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-


                          ORDER

Petitioners are aggrieved by an endorsement dated 07.05.2015 passed in RRT.Beelu.214/2012-2013 by the third respondent, Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District (Annexure - A). If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said endorsement, they can approach the Appellate Authority under the provisions of The 3 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as there is an alternative and efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 49 of the said Act.

2. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach Appellate Authority / superior authority, if so advised.

3. Office to return original of Annexure - A to the petitioners' counsel forthwith.

4. In the event the petitioners avail the alternative remedy or any other remedy as envisaged under the Act, if there is a delay in doing it so, the pendency of writ petitions before this Court may be taken note of by the said authority.

5. In the event, petitioners avail alternative remedy, they are at liberty to seek interim or protective orders by the said authority. It is needless to observe 4 that if any such application is filed, Appellate Authority to consider the said application expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE UN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court