IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.34202 OF 2009(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PAPAMMA W/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. SRI P.BORAIAH S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SRI P.NAGARAJA S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SRI P.GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O CHITRAIANAHATTY VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
5. SRI P.OBAIAH S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O CHITRAIANAHATTY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK,] CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
*SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 5(a) SMT.YASHODAMMA W/O LATE P.OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5(b) O.ANU D/O P.OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS 5(c) O.TANU D/O P.OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS 5(d) O.MANU D/O P.OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS 5(e) O.DHANU D/O P.OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS 5(f) O.BORESHA S/O P.BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS ALL ARE R/O CHITRAIANAHATTY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
*AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 20.01.2016. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
3. THE TAHSILDAR CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHALLAKERE – 577 522.
4. SRI G.THIPPESWAMY S/O JOGAIAH, AGE:MAJOR, R/O CHITRAIANAHATTY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2009, PASSED BY THE R2, VIDE ANNEXURE-S.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The impugned order in the writ petition dated 10.11.2009, vide Annexure-S, passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, is an order appealable to the Deputy Commissioner under Section- 49(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act’).
2. In view of an alternate remedy available to the petitioners, it is inappropriate for this Court to entertain this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section-49(b) of the Act.
3. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today, the Deputy Commissioner to consider the same on merits, without reference to the delay. The parties are directed to maintain status-quo, until final orders are passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
SD/- JUDGE JJ