IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.41 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND WRIT PETITION NO.564 OF 2017(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. ATHAULLA BAIG S/O LATE JAFFAR BAIG AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT SOLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. AMANULLA BAIG, S/O. LATE JAFFAR BAIG, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADV.,) AND:
1. KHALEEL BAIG S/O LATE MOHIDDIN BAIG AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ... PETITIONERS 2. NORULLA BAIG S/O LATE MOHIDDIN BAIG AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. KHALIMULLA S/O LATE MOHIDDIN BAIG 4. RIYAZULLA BAIG S/O LATE MOHIDDIN BAIG AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. ZIYAULLA BAIG S/O LATE MOHIDDIN BAIG AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SOLUR VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.
6. TASILDHAR MAGADI TALUK MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN-562 120 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, HCGP FOR R6 & R7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-6 IN MR.NO.5/2003-04 DTD.9.12.2015 VIDE ANNEX-C AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-7 IN RA.NO.361/2015-16 DTD.29.7.2016 AS PER ANNEX-A AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and is permitted file memo of appearance in four weeks.
Aggrieved by the mutation made by the Tahasildar, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The same was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the authorities have committed an error in passing the impugned orders. However, the learned Government Advocate contends that the petitioner has the remedy of filing revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
3. In view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy, it is inappropriate for this Court to entertain these writ petitions. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed.
4. Petitioners’ counsel seeks liberty to file revision before the Deputy Commissioner. If such revision is filed within a period of eight weeks from today, the same shall be considered on merits without reference to the delay.
SD/- JUDGE PMR