- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53787-DB WA No. 1122 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1122 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE KULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT KADAHALLI VILLAGE MADAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313 …APPELLANT (BY SRI P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53787-DB WA No. 1122 of 2024 4. THE TAHSILDAR CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 TO 4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/06/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.23576/2023 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 28/10/2022 BEARING NO.SUM. R.R.T.C.R/311/22-23 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 HEREIN & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23576/2023 (KLR-RR/SUR) [impugned order], whereby the said petition was disposed of. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53787-DB WA No. 1122 of 2024 2. The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, impugning an endorsement dated 28.10.2022 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the appellant's request for entering his name in the khatha in respect of the subject land (measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas falling in Survey No. 21, Mariyala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara Taluk, was rejected. 3. It is the appellant's case that the subject land was granted to one Mr.Siddaveerappa on 09.12.1975 and the appellant had purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 15.01.2002. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant's name was not entered in the Khatha. The appellant also states a writ petition being W.P.No.48577-78/2001 was filed, inter alia, impugning a notification dated 01.12.2001 issued by the Senior Geologist, Chamarajanagara granting mining lease in respect to certain lands falling in same survey number. The said petition was also premised on a claim that the appellant was the owner of the property. The petitioners in the said petition were the owners of the subject land, who had sold the subject land in favour of the appellant, who was arrayed as the fourth petitioner in the said case. The mining lease - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53787-DB WA No. 1122 of 2024 had been granted on the premise that the subject land belonged to the State Government. 4. The Court in the said case noted that the dispute essentially related to title of the subject land and therefore, declined to excise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.12.2003 with the observation that the writ petitioners would have to establish their right in a Civil Court. 5. The appellant claims that thereafter, he had filed a suit being O.S.No.111/2004 seeking a declaration in respect to the title of the subject land, which was decreed. He states that an appeal preferred against the decree by one of the defendants to the said suit was also rejected by the appellate Court. He submits that notwithstanding the same, the Tahsildar had declined to rectify the entries on the ground that the grant in favour of Mr. Siddaveerappa (the grantee) from whom the appellant had purchased the properties is fake. According to the appellant, since the decree has been issued, it is necessary for the Tahsildar to make necessary entries in this regard. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53787-DB WA No. 1122 of 2024 6. Concededly, the appellant has an efficacious remedy against the endorsement under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 7. In the given circumstances, the learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the petition, relegating the appellant for the said alternate remedy. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is erroneous and in cases where an authority has acted without jurisdiction, the writ petition would be maintainable. He also refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v. State of Bihar and others (2022) 16 SCC 428 in support of the said contention. 9. There is no cavil that a writ petition would be maintainable against an order of any authority who has acted without jurisdiction. In certain cases, this Court does entertain the writ petition notwithstanding an efficacious remedy, if there is violation of principles of natural justice or the State has acted completely without jurisdiction. However in the present case, the decision whether to make an alteration in the land records clearly falls within - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53787-DB WA No. 1122 of 2024 the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar. Whether the said jurisdiction has been exercised rightly or wrongly is clearly a matter that can be agitated in an appeal before the appellate authority. Considering that the appellant has a remedy of an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner with respect to the said endorsement, the decision of the learned Single Judge declining to entertain the petition cannot be faulted. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. It is clarified that this order would not preclude the appellant from availing statutory remedy. We further direct that if the same is availed within a period of one month from date, the same would be considered uninfluenced by the question of delay. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21