Karnataka High Court
Shri. Anandrao S/O Narsinhrao Ghorpade vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9084
WP No. 103721 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.103721 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
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.
Digitally
signed by
3. SHRI. DAULATRAO
BHARATHI H
M
Location:
S/O NARSINGARAO GHORPADE,
HIGH COURT
BHARATHI
HM
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
BENCH
Date:
2024.07.05
12:17:19
R/O: SHIVAJI CHOUK, SARKAR WADA,
+0530
MADABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 GPA
HOLDER PETITIONER NO.3.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY PRL. SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPT., VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9084
WP No. 103721 of 2024
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE THASILDHAR,
ATHNI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
4. SHRI. MARUTI
S/ O LIMBAJI BAJABALE,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
5. SHRI. APPA
S/O LIMBAJI BAJABALE,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
6. SHRI. VISHNU
S/O BABU BAJABALE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
7. SHRI. UDAY
S/O BABU BAJABALE,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
8. SHRI. PANDURANG
S/O BABU BAJABALE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: JAKKARATTI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
9. 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.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3)
-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
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for 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.
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