- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100259 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. YELLAPPA S/O. SHANMUKHAPPA GADDI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAGIRGUDADUR, KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 2. ANANTRAO S/O. MUDDURAO KHONAPUR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAGIRGUDADUR, KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 3. PUTRAPPA S/O. PARAPPA SHIRGUMPI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. JAGIRGUDADUR, KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 4. HANUMAPPA S/O. SHIVANANDAPPA KAREKANKAPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. JAGIRGUDADUR, KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 5. SHARANAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA MALAGITTI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. JAGIRGUDADUR, KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 6. SHARANAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA NEELAGUNDA, AGED ABOURT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. JAGIRGUDADUR, KUSHTAGI TALUK, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.01 15:58:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN-583277. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. HUKKERI AND SRI. V.P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. GEETHABAI W/O. GOVINDACHAR KOLLI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, NEAR AMBABHAVANI TEMPLE, HANUMANSAGARA, KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, KOPPALA DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE DIVISION, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, KOPPALA, KOPPALA DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 4. TAHASILDAR KUSTHAGI, KUSHTAGI TALUK, KOPPALS DISTRICT, PIN-583277. 5. SUB REGISTRAR MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA BUILDING, KUSTAGI, KOPPALA DISTRICT, PIN-583277. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2 TO R5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2022 ON I.A NO.VIII IN O.S.NO.343/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KUSHTAGI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.343/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi challenging the correctness of the order dated 21.04.2022 by which it rejected the plaint by entertaining an application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants. 3. The suit in O.S. No.343/2021 was filed in representative capacity for declaration that the suit properties were reserved for the use of the general public and to restrain the defendant No.1 from interfering with the possession and use of the suit properties by the general public. They also sought for a prayer that the general public should be entitled to all the benefits arising out of the suit properties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 4. The plaintiffs claimed that they are the residents of Jagir Gadadur village in Hanamanal hobli, Kushtagi taluk and that they were aware of the complete details of the lands in Jagir Gadadur. They claimed that they were the permanent residents of Jagir Gadadur. They contended that the suit properties were in the possession of the general public and the revenue records of the suit properties showed that they were Government grazing land, gayarana, Gomala, Forest Department. They claimed that prior to the year 1953, the suit properties were under the administration of the Nijam of Hyderabad and were treated as Jagir and the revenue entries were made in the name of Jagirdar. They claimed that the name of Mr.Dadacharya Jyagiradar/Dadacharya was mentioned in the revenue records till the year 1973. They claimed that after the abolition of Jagirs, the Jagirdar-Mr.Dadacharya Jagirdar expired about 60 years ago without leaving any legal heirs. They contended that since entries were not made in the name of the State Government that it was a Gomal in the revenue records, the revenue officials in collusion with one Mr. Govindacharya S/o. Venkappacharya had managed to get his name entered in the revenue records. They contended that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 said Govindacharya has nothing to do with the suit schedule properties and that he was neither the owner nor in possession or cultivation of the said properties. They alleged that the suit properties comprised of a rocky terrain and the residents of the villages surrounding it were grazing their cattle in the suit properties. They contended that suit properties were not suitable for cultivation. Nonetheless, in column No.12 of the Pahani it was shown as “Togari, Sajje, Bele” etc. Plaintiffs contended that these entries made in column No.12 were all false. They also contended that they had no revenue documents justifying the transfer of the revenue records to the name of Govindacharya. They further contended that defendant No.1 was not in any way related to the suit properties and was never in possession of it. She claimed that she was the wife of Govindacharya and had submitted fraudulent documents and in collusion with the revenue officials had managed to obtain the mutation in her name on 15.05.1990. They also contended that defendant No.1 was never the owner of the suit properties and was never in possession. They further contended that in column No.12 of the revenue records, the suit properties were shown as “uncultivated, Gomal and Forest Department”. They - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 contended that the forest department had planted saplings in the suit properties, which had matured and public were utilising the same. They contended that neither the defendant No.1 nor the Mr.Dadacharya Jyagiradar or Govindacharya objected to the forest department in doing so. They contended that this position stood for nearly hundred years and the residents of Jagir Gadadur, Konapura, Paramanahatti were grazing their cattle in the suit properties. They also contended that the suit properties were reserved for the general public. They contended that the defendant No.1 after getting her name entered in the revenue records was attempting to dispose of the same. In that regard, the plaintiffs submitted a representation to defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 21.09.2020. The defendant No.2 had instructed the defendant No.4 to inspect the properties and draw a Panchanama and submit a report. The defendant No.4 inspected the suit properties, drew a panchanama and reported that the suit properties comprised of rocky terrain and not suitable for cultivation. The plaintiffs contended that the respondents without treating the suit properties as uncultivable kharab land or kharab used for general public drew up a sketch in Form No.11E showing that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 the suit properties were in unauthorised cultivation. They contended that this is done only to help the defendant No.1. They also contended that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 violating the Registration Rules were in a haste to register the documents submitted by defendant No.1. The plaintiffs therefore claimed that if this was allowed, the State Government and the public at large would suffer immensely. Therefore, they sought for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. (i) The suit was contested by the defendant No.1, who denied the assertions made in the plaint and claimed that it was a Jagir property and the land was regranted to her family and that she was the legal heir who had succeeded to the suit properties. She denied that the suit properties were reserved for the general public. (ii) She also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, for rejecting the plaint. The defendant No.1 contended in the application that the assertions made in the plaint were all far from truth. She contended that none of the plaintiffs had any information about the lands lying in Jagir Gadadur. She also denied the claim of the plaintiffs that they - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 had filed the suit bonafidely to protect the interest of the general public. She claimed that the suit properties belonged to her family and that she was the owner and in possession of the same. Therefore, she contends that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file a suit. She claimed that if the plaintiffs desired to file a suit in a representative capacity, they were bound to first publish it in the newspaper, which they did not. She claimed that the plaintiffs had submitted a representation dated 21.09.2020 to the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to consider the suit properties as reserved properties for public purposes. The defendant No.2 had directed the defendant No.4 to inspect the suit properties and submit a report. Consequently, the Revenue Inspector and the Village Accountant of Hanumanal village visited the suit properties and drew up a Panchanama on 06.02.2021 and submitted a report to defendant No.4. It was stated in the said report that the suit properties comprised of rocky terrain and they were not fit for agricultural purposes. She contended that defendant No.4 did not submit any report that the suit properties comprised of a rocky terrain and unfit for agriculture. She claims that she also submitted a representation to the Range Forest Officer, Kushtagi, for a ‘No - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 Objection Certificate’. The Range Forest Officer of Kushtagi after verifying his records had given a ‘No Objection Certificate’ stating that the suit properties were patta land and were not a forest land. Therefore, she prays that the plaint be rejected as there was no cause of action. She contended that there was no entry made in the revenue records that the suit properties were Gayarana, Gomal, forest department. She also contended that the suit properties were never under the administration of the Nizam of Hyderabad but, claims that the suit properties belonged to her family. She claimed that Dadacharya was the original pattadar and after his death, the suit properties were succeeded by his son Govindacharya and his name was entered in the suit properties. After his death, the name of defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records as the successor. Therefore, she claims that the public had no interest in the suit properties but the suit was filed only to exploit the defendant No.1 for obvious gain. She claimed that none of the residents of Jagir Gadadur, Konapura, Paramanahatti and Guddadadevalapura were troubling her. She claimed that none of the residents of the above villages were concerned with the suit properties and since the suit properties were cultivated, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 question of allowing cattle to graze in the suit properties did not arise. Therefore, she prayed that the suit be rejected as there was nothing to show that the suit properties were reserved for the use of the general public. 6. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs, who contended that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC cannot be filed to reject the plaint at an intermediate stage. They contended that the issues raised by the plaintiffs had to be determined after a full fledged trial and the defendant No.1 could not compel the trial Court to decide the merits of the case based on the assertions made in the plaint and the written statement. 7. The trial Court after considering the application as well as the objections filed by him, allowed the application in terms of the order dated 21.04.2022 on the ground that the suit in representative capacity is not maintainable as the Court could not decide the status of a person and cannot adjudicate the issue that is required to be adjudicated under Sections 62(b), 63 and 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the KLR Act, 1964” for short). It - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 also held that under Section 67 of the KLR Act, 1964, all lands which do not belong to any individual, shall belong to the State Government. It also held that it is the Deputy Commissioner, who has to conduct a survey to identify whether the lands have become fallow and unfit for cultivation, and such a relief can be granted only by the Deputy Commissioners and not by the Civil Court. It also held that the revenue records stood in the name of the defendant No.1 as the legal heir of Govindacharya and hence, it was a dispute between two individuals. It held that the documents produced by the plaintiffs did not show that the suit properties belong to the Government or that the plaintiffs had any common interest over the suit properties. It also held that since the plaintiffs admitted that the revenue records stood in the name of the defendant No.1, a suit for declaration that the suit properties were reserved for the use of the general public was hit by Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors reported in 2004(3) SCC 137 and held that the plaint is liable to be rejected. It also held that the Range Forest Officer after conducting a spot inspection had - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 issued a “No Objection Certificate” stating that the suit properties did not belong to the forest department. It held that the plaintiffs suppressed material facts as the suit properties were registered in the name of a private person and were not a public property and therefore, it proceeded to hold that there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit in a representative capacity. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is only the averments made in the plaint that has to be taken into consideration and not the contentions raised by the defendants in the written statement or the application filed for rejection of the plaint. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs had indeed pleaded that the suit properties were used by the residents of the village for grazing their cattle. They also contended that entries were made in column No.12 of the RTCs of the suit properties that the suit properties were reserved for Gomal, forest department. He therefore contends that there was sufficient material for the trial Court to go in for a trial and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 the trial Court could not have rejected the plaint at an interlocutory stage. He also contends that the defendant No.1 had produced documents which established that the suit properties were used by the general public of Jagir Gadadur and therefore, the plaint could not have been rejected on the assertions made by the defendant No.1 that the suit properties belonged to her family. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that though the plaintiffs throughout plaint claimed that the suit properties were used by the general public and that it was reserved for the use of general public, nothing was placed before the trial Court to establish that the suit properties were treated as such. He contends that under Section 67 of the KLR Act, 1964, the properties that vest in the State Government are public roads and all lands which are not the properties of others. He contends that under Section 67(2) of the KLR Act, 1964 where any property is claimed by or on behalf of the State Government or by any person as against the State Government, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order deciding the claim. He contends that if the plaintiffs - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 are the desirous of obtaining the declaration, they are bound to make appropriate representations before the authority as provided under Section 67(2) of the KLR Act, 1964. He contends that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted in view of Section 63 of the KLR Act, 1964. He therefore contends that on a question of law also the suit was not maintainable. Besides that he contends that the plaintiffs have not produced an iota evidence to show that the suit properties were ever treated as a Government land or forest land or Gomal land and therefore, the suit in a representative capacity was not maintainable. He submits that mere clever drafting of the plaint would not insulate it from being rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, if no cause of action was made out or if the suit was ex-facie barred in law. Therefore, he contends that the trial Court after considering the assertions made in the plaint and taking into account that the plaintiffs had not produced any document in proof to support the plaint averments, rightly rejected the plaint. He therefore contends that there is no error committed by the trial Court in rejecting the plaint. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendant No.1. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is; Whether the trial Court was justified in entertaining the application filed by defendant No.1 for rejection of the plaint? 11. It is now well settled that while considering an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is filed, it is only the plaint and the averments made therein that has to be looked into and not the assertions made by the defendants in the written statement or in the application filed for rejection of the plaint. If a plaint does not disclose a clear cause of action or if it is barred under any law, the Court would exercise it’s jurisdiction to reject the plaint as any further exercise would be a waste of time and resources. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have claimed that the suit properties were reserved for the use of the general public and that at some point of time, entries were made in column No.12 of the revenue records that the suit properties were reserved for a Gomal and forest department etc. They also contend that the suit properties were - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 not cultivable as it was a comprised of a rocky terrain and therefore, steps had to be taken to treat it as a Government karab land. They also contend that all the residents of the Jagir Gadadur and other surrounding villagers were grazing their cattle in the suit properties and hence, all of them have communion of interest in the suit properties. 12. However, in order to drive home the above, the plaintiffs did not produce any documents to prima-facie show that the suit properties were indeed reserved for the State Government or that it was reserved for the use of the general public as a Gomal or for the forest department. The trial Court records, which was summoned, show that except the assertions made in the plaint, the plaintiffs did not produce any documents to support their contention that the suit properties were endowed to the general public. When a party approaches the Court claiming title to the suit properties and other reliefs, it is sufficient to plead about his ownership but when he claims that the State Government is the owner or that it belongs to the general public by prolonged use, he is bound to produce some documents to support his claim. As rightly held by the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 trial Court, except the oral assertions in the plaint, there was nothing to show that the suit properties stood in the name of the State Government. On the contrary, the assertions made in the plaint itself established that the revenue records of the suit properties stood in the name of the defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not clothed with any cause of action to file a suit to declare that the suit properties were reserved for the use of the general public. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1, the lands which are not the properties of any other person, belongs to the State Government as provided under Section 67 of the KLR Act, 1964. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted below; “67. Public roads, etc., and all lands which are not the property of others belong to the Government.—(1) All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks and all canals and water-courses and all standing and flowing waters, and all lands wherever situated which are not the property of individuals or of aggregate of persons legally capable of holding property, and except in so far as any rights of such persons may be established, in or over the same, and except as may be otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, are and are hereby declared to be with all rights in or - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of the State Government. Explanation.—In this section, “high-water mark” means the highest point reached by ordinary spring tides at any season of the year. (2) Where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the State Government or by any person as against the State Government, it shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner or a Survey Officer not lower in rank than a Deputy Commissioner, after formal inquiry to pass an order deciding the claim. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub- section (2) or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit contesting the order within a period of one year from the date of such order and the final decision in the civil suit shall be binding on the parties.” 14. Under Section 68 of the KLR Act, 1964, the extinction of right of the public and individuals over public roads, streets, lane or path is provided for and the same reads as follows; “68. Extinction of rights of public and individuals in or over any public road, street, lane or path not required for use of public.—(1) Whenever it appears to the State Government that the whole or any part of any public road, street, lane, or path which is the property of the State Government, is not required for the use of the public, the State Government may, by notification, make a declaration to such effect, stating in such declaration that it is proposed that the rights of the public as well as of all persons in or over any such road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 extinguished. On the publication of such notification, the Deputy Commissioner, shall, as soon as possible cause public notice of such declaration to be given at convenient places on, or in the vicinity of, such road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, as the case may be. Such declaration and notice shall specify, as far as practicable, the situation and limits of such road, street, lane or path or part thereof, and shall invite objections to the aforesaid proposal. (2) Any member of the public or any person having any interest or right, in addition to the right of public high-way, in or over such road, street, lane or path or part thereof, or having any other interest or right which is likely to be adversely affected by the proposal may, within ninety days after the issue of the notification, under sub-section (1), state to the Deputy Commissioner in writing his objections to the proposal, the nature of his interest or right and the manner in which it is likely to be adversely affected and the amount and particulars of his claim to compensation for such interest or right: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may allow any person to make such statement after the period of [one month] after the issue of the notification under sub- section (1), if he is satisfied that such person had sufficient cause for not making it within the said period. (3) The Deputy Commissioner shall give every person who has made a statement to him under sub-section (2), an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such persons in such manner and after making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, determine the amount of compensation, if any, which should, in his opinion, be given in any case in respect of any substantial loss or damage likely to be caused by the proposed extinction of the rights of the public as well as of persons as aforesaid. The provisions of sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) shall, so far - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 as may be, apply to the proceedings held by the Deputy Commissioner under this sub-section. (4) The Deputy Commissioner shall submit to the State Government the record of the proceedings held by him with the report, containing his recommendations on the objections, if any, received by him stating the amount of compensation, if any, which, in his opinion, are payable to any person. (5) If the State Government is satisfied after considering the record of the proceedings and the report, if any, made under sub-section (4) that the public road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, specified in the notification under sub-section (1) is not required for the use of the public, a declaration shall be published in the official Gazette that all rights of the public as well as of all persons in or over such road, street, lane, or path, or part thereof, are extinguished; and all such rights shall thereupon be extinguished, and such road, street, lane or path, or part thereof, shall be at the disposal of the State Government with effect from the date of such declaration. (6) The decision of the Deputy Commissioner, subject to such appeals or revision as are allowed under Chapter V, regarding the amount of compensation and the person to whom such compensation, if any, is payable, shall be final; and payment shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner to such persons accordingly.” 15. Under Section 69 of the KLR Act, 1964, the State Government is entitled to dispose of the lands or other properties belonging to it under Section 67 of the KLR Act, 1964. In view of the Section 67(2) of the KLR Act, 1964, if any person claims that the properties belong to the State - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 Government, he has to either approach the competent authority under Section 67(2) or the concerned Court. The powers of the Civil Courts are ousted under Section 63 of the KLR Act, 1964, which reads as follows; “63. Plaintiff to exhaust his right of appeal before instituting a suit or other proceeding against Government.—No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer, unless the plaintiff first proves that previously to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force as, within the period of limitation allowed for bringing such suit or proceeding, it was possible to present.” 16. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not have filed a suit for a declaration that the suit properties belong to the State Government or that it was reserved for the use by the general public of Jagir Gadadur. 17. Apparently, there was no cause of action for them to file a suit seeking for such a declaration. In addition, under Section 135 of the KLR Act, 1964, no suit shall lie against the State Government or any Officer of the State Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any revenue record or register that is maintained under Chapter-XI or to have such - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9124-DB RFA No. 100259 of 2022 entry omitted or amended. Therefore, on all grounds, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action and also on the ground that a suit was not maintainable in view of the express provisions contained in the KLR Act, 1964. 18. We therefore do not find any error in exercise of discretion by the trial Court. Hence, we answer the above point for consideration in the affirmative. In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed. However, if the plaintiffs obtain relevant documents to show that the suit properties were treated as belonging to the State Government or that it was reserved by the State Government for use by the general public, they may file a fresh suit in accordance with law. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PJ, RH, CT:PA, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32