- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8569 WP No. 103641 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103641 OF 2024 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KESHAVA W/O. SEETARAM BHAT, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANADUR VILLAGE, HULEKAL, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. SRI. DINESH S/O. SEETARAM BHAT, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANADUR VILLAGE, HULEKAL, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. SRI. SATYANARAYAN S/O. SEETARAM BHAT, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANADUR VILLAGE, HULEKAL, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 4. SRI. SRIPAD S/O. SEETARAM BHAT, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANADUR VILLAGE, HULEKAL, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND REFORMS) DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SIRSI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SIRSI, DIST: U.K.-581401. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.07.16 14:35:16 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8569 WP No. 103641 of 2024 3. THE TAHASHILDAR, SIRSI, MEMBER-SECRETARY, LAND TRIBUNAL, SIRSI, DIST: U.K.-581402. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REEXAMINE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.10.2002 IN BHUSU-7A-VVA-591 PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS BEARING SY.NO.141, 144, 155/1, 155/2, 162, 163, 170 AND 259 OF MANADUR VILLAGE, HULEKAL, SIRSI, AS APPLIED FOR IN FORM NO.7A DATED 28.01.1999, PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned AGA Sri.M.M.Khannur is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondent No.2 to re-examine the impugned order dated 28.10.2002 vide Annexure-D. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8569 WP No. 103641 of 2024 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of the property bearing Sy.Nos.141, 144, 155/1, 155/2, 162, 163, 170, 193B, 255 and 259 of Munadur village, Hulekal gram, Sirsi taluk, Uttara Kannada district and they have secured the same by way of family partition. Thereafter, mutation entry has been made in M.E.No.1174 dated 28.06.1990. Accordingly, the lands have fallen to the share of the petitioners and their mother. The petitioner No.1 is shown to represent as Manager of the Hindu Undivided Family. This being the state of affairs, petitioner No.1 filed Form No.7A under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for grant of tenancy rights in respect of the immovable property on the basis of the mutation entries made, so also on the basis of partition. The petitioners made an application for grant of tenancy rights in respect of totally 8 properties. However, while considering the same, respondent No.2 instead of passing orders with regard to all the 8 properties, has passed order only with regard to 4 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8569 WP No. 103641 of 2024 properties and no order has been passed with regard to remaining 4 properties, which the petitioners have sought for grant of tenancy rights. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court questioning the same that the order is illegal, arbitrary and no application of mind by the respondent No.2 while passing such an order. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for a direction to the respondent No.2 to re-examine and pass orders on remaining 4 properties which are not forthcoming in the orders passed at Annexure-D. Hence, this petition is filed. 4. Per contra, the learned AGA representing the State contends that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2, the appropriate remedy available to them is by way of an appeal under Section 118 of the Act of 1961. For better understanding, Section 118(2) of the Act of 1961 reads as under: “118. Appeals.— (2) From every order passed by the Deputy Commissioner or an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of section 77, or sub-section (1) of section 77A the Assistant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8569 WP No. 103641 of 2024 Commissioner or the prescribed authority under section 83, an appeal shall lie to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal on such appeal shall be final. (2-a) x x x (2b) From every order passed by the Tahsildar, an appeal shall lie to the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the Assistant Commissioner on such appeal shall be final.” 5. Therefore, it is the primary contention of the learned AGA that the remedy available to the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal has not been exhausted, and that the petitioners have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which may not be the correct procedure, as an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to them. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondent-State. 7. On careful perusal of the provisions of Section 118, which clearly specifies the order passed by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8569 WP No. 103641 of 2024 Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 or sub-section (1) of Section 77A is appealable and the proper authority to hear such an appeal is the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. In the present case on hand, the respondent No.2 has not passed orders pertaining to 4 properties. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revenue Appellate Tribunal to redress his grievance as sought for in this petition. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is disposed off. ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, if they are so aggrieved or advised, against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, as reflected in Annexure-D. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8569 WP No. 103641 of 2024 iii. All contentions of the petitioners are kept open. iv. This Court has not adverted to the merits of the matter. v. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10