- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23615 WP No. 13854 of 2025 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, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.115/3, ITP MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 037. …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, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23615 WP No. 13854 of 2025 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23615 WP No. 13854 of 2025 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23615 WP No. 13854 of 2025 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23615 WP No. 13854 of 2025 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23615 WP No. 13854 of 2025 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23615 WP No. 13854 of 2025 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