- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7101 WP No. 9604 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 9604 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. BHAGYAMMA @ BHAGYALAKSHMAMMA, D/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT DINNENAHALLI VILLAGE, MANCENAHALLI HOBLI AND GOURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 IN R.U.C.C.R./44/2017-18 DATED 24/01/2018, PRODUCED AT THE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS AND ETC., Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7101 WP No. 9604 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner had filed an application in Form No. 53 seeking consideration of their claim over the subject land. However, the jurisdictional Tahasildar rejected the said application on the ground that the land in question is classified as "Huduvali" land. Consequently, the Tahasildar held that the Land Grant Committee lacks the jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry or consider the petitioner’s unauthorized occupation of the said land. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Upon perusal of the records and contentions raised, this Court finds that the petitioner has an - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7101 WP No. 9604 of 2024 alternative and efficacious remedy available in the form of an appeal against the impugned order. The petitioner is therefore required to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy before approaching this Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In light of this, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. 3. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy of an appeal in accordance with law. If the petitioner chooses to file such an appeal, the appellate authority shall consider the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order passed by the Tahasildar. Subject to these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK CT: BHK