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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9084
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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9084
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
