Karnataka High Court
Smt. A. Vani vs The Special Assistant Commissioner-3 on 2 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23615
WP No. 13854 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13854 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. A. VANI,
W/O DR. B. V. DEVAR,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3777, 13TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU- 560 070.
2. SMT. MANJULA,
W/O C. S. SHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.115/3,
ITPL MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 037.
3. SMT. A. RAJITHA,
W/O A.M. GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
by SHARMA RESIDING AT NO.115/3,
ANAND CHAYA
ITP MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU- 560 037.
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MANJUNATHA H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-3
BENGALURU NORTH NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23615
WP No. 13854 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU.
3. SRI AMBARISH
S/O LATE H.N. VENKATESH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.121, 1ST CROSS,
KUNDALAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI,
BENGALURU- 560 037.
4. SRI RAJANNA,
S/O LATE H.N. VENKATESH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.121, 1ST CROSS,
KUNDALAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI,
BENGALURU- 560 037.
5. SRI K.V. GURUMURTHY,
S/O LATE H.N.VENKATESH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.121, 1ST CROSS,
KUNDALAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI,
BENGALURU- 560 037.
6. SRI ASHWATH,
S/O LATE H. N. KESHAVAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.102, 1A CROSS,
BEHIND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
BEHIND BHADRA APARTMENT,
KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU 560037.
7. SMT. PAVITRA,
D/O LATE H. N. KESHAVAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.102, 1A CROSS,
BEHIND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
BEHIND BHADRA APARTMENT,
KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 037.
8. SRI GIRISH ANAND,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23615
WP No. 13854 of 2025
HC-KAR
S/O LATE H. N. ANANDARAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.115/3, ITP MAIN ROAD,
KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI K.SEENAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI N.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; AND
SRI CHANNAKESHAVA B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt.Nalina Mayegowda, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri Manjunatha H., learned counsel for
petitioners, Smt.Navya Shekhar, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri
K.Seenappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5,
Sri N.Vishwanath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7
and Sri Channakeshava B.S., learned counsel for respondent
No.8.
NC: 2025:KHC:23615
HC-KAR
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the
order dated 21.02.2025 passed by respondent No.1 at
Annexure-A, inter alia, seeking writ or certiorari to quash
M.R.No.T11/2024-2025, dated 17.04.2025 and M.R.No.H6,
dated 03.05.2025 produced at Annexures-B and T respectively.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 has raised the preliminary objection
with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground that, the petitioners are having an efficacious remedy
under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
(for short, 'the Act').
4. In this regard, Smt.Nalina Mayegowda, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted by placing reliance
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Jayamma
and Others vs. The State of Karnataka, rep., by its
Secretary, Department of Revenue and Others reported in
ILR 2020 KAR 1449, particularly by referring to
paragraph 100, submitted that, it is a futile exercise for the
petitioners herein to approach the Revisional Authorities, as the
rights of the parties have been already crystalised in
O.S.No.3634/2005.
NC: 2025:KHC:23615
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, Sri K.Seenappa, learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and learned counsel for other private
respondents invited the attention of the Court to the impugned
order at Annexure-A and contended that, the mutation has
been made in terms of the judgment and decree passed by this
Court in RFA No.106/1977 and therefore, writ petition be
dismissed.
6. In that view of the matter, though the Full Bench of
this Court has held that, the revenue Authorities have no
jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties, where title is
in question, however, taking into consideration that the
petitioners are having an efficacious remedy under
Section 136(3) of the Act is concerned. I am of the view that,
the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly
dismissed. At this stage, it is relevant to cite the judgment by
the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India v. T.R.Varma reported in AIR 1957
SC 882, at para 6 held as follows:
"6. At the very outset, we have to observe that a writ
petition under Art. 226 is not the appropriate
proceeding for adjudication of disputes like the present.
Under the law, a person whose service have been
NC: 2025:KHC:23615
HC-KAR
wrongfully terminated is entitled to institute an action to
vindicate his rights, and in such an action, the Court will
be competent to award all the reliefs to which he may
be entitled, including some which would not be
admissible in a writ petition.
It is well-settled that when an alternative and
equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he
should be required to pursue that remedy and not
invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue
a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of
another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the
Court to issue a writ; but, as observed by this Court in
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, 1950 SCR
566: (AIR 1950 SC 163) (A) "the existence of an
adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into
consideration in the matter of granting writs": Vide also
K. S. Rashid and Son v. The Income-tax Investigation
Commission, 1954 SCR 738 at p. 747: (AIR 1954 SC
207 at p. 210) (B). And where such remedy exists, it
will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to
interfere in a petition under Art. 226, unless there are
good grounds therefor. None such appears in the
present case. On the other hand, the point for
determination in this petition whether the respondent
was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his
case, turns mainly on the question whether he was
prevented from cross examining the witnesses, who
gave evidence in support of the charge.
NC: 2025:KHC:23615
HC-KAR
That is a question on which there is a serious
dispute, which cannot be satisfactorily decided without
taking evidence. It is not the practice of Courts to
decide questions of that character in a writ petition, and
it would have been a proper exercise of discretion in the
present case if the learned Judges had referred the
respondent to a suit.
In this appeal, we should have ourselves adopted
that course, and passed the order which the learned
Judge should have passed. But we feel pressed by the
fact that the order dismissing the respondent having
been made on September 16, 1954, an action to set it
aside would now be time-barred. As the High Court has
gone into the matter on the merits, we propose to
dispose of this appeal on a consideration of the merits."
7. Following the declaration of law referred to above, the
writ petition is not maintainable, however, liberty is reserved to
the petitioners to approach the Revisional Authority in
accordance with law.
In view of the dismissal of the petition, impleading
application is accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
CPN
