IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.1598 OF 2018 (LR) BETWEEN:
H V RAJATHILAK PANDITH S/O LATE H K VENKATESH PANDITH AGE 56 YEARS, R/ INAM AGRAHARA MUCHANDI TALAGUNDA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 428.
(BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
... APPELLANT 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB DIVISION, SAGAR – 577 401.
3. SMT H N JAYAMMA W/O NAGARAJ PANDIT, AGE: MAJOR HINDUPURAM CITY ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT – 515 204.
4. TOLACHA NAIKA S/O CHOWDANAIKA, AGE: MAJOR R/O THARALAGHATTA VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 214.
5. BHEEMA NAIKA S/O SAKRANAIKA, AGE: MAJOR R/O THARALAGHATTA VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 214.
6. TAHASILDAR, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 401.
1.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
R6 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.02.2019) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.04.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.4485/2018 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4485 of 2018 on the ground that the appellant as an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the question of exercising the alternate remedy is inappropriate on the ground that the proceedings initiated ought to have continued before the Assistant Commissioner and claim of the appellant should have to be considered on merits.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. However, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Firstly, on the fact that the appellant has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Secondly, appellant seeking grant of occupancy rights pursuant to his application under Form No.7A is pending consideration. The consideration of such an application will determine the occupancy rights of the applicant or otherwise in respect of the land in question. Hence, on these grounds, we do not find any error with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VMB