IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. No.29030/2019(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
C. CHANDRAMANI D/O CHOKKALINGAPPA @ CHOKKALINGESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O TANIGEKALLU VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.
NOW RESIDING AT BEHIND COURT BUILDING HOSADURGA TOWN.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE TAHSILDAR KARYALAYA HOSADURGA TALUK HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.
(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) ... RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE OCNSITUTITION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN NO.R.R.T. C.R.:718/18-19 DATED:25.05.2019/30.05.2019 ISSUED/PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY WAY OF ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI AGAINST THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND DIERCT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO REMOVE THE NAME OF MR. CHIKKAVEERAPPA IN THE RTC COLUM NO.12 ANNEXURE-J TO L SHOWIN HIS NAME OF POSSESSION BY ISSUING WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Gopalakrishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Endorsement dated 25.05.2019 issued to petitioner intimating thereunder that M.R.No.29/91- 92 which is sought to be effected whereunder revenue records relating to Sy.No.87/3AP1-P2 measuring 5 acres 5 guntas has already been effected and in the event of petitioner being aggrieved by the said entry, an appeal can be filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is under challenge in this writ petition raising several grounds as morefully urged in the present writ petition.
3. Without going into merits of the case, it would be apt and appropriate to note at this juncture itself that when petitioner is having alternate and efficacious remedy available under law, without availing the same has approached this Court under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India and has prayed for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.
4. In the light of petitioner having an alternate remedy of filing an appeal to challenge the mutation entry made by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same in the appeal. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits, petition is dismissed. It is made clear in the event of appeal being filed, Appellate Authority would be empowered to consider the issue of limitation also and no opinion is expressed in that regard. In the event of application for condonation of delay being filed, said application shall also be considered on merits necessarily after issuing notice to other side. However, petitioner would be entitled to seek for condonation of delay insofar as period spent by petitioner before this Court from the date of filing of this petition i.e., 09.07.2019 till its disposal i.e., 19.09.2019.
SD/- JUDGE DR