- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319412026 NC: 2026:KHC:51720 WP No. 14652 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 14652 OF 2026 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. THEN KUMAR S/O BABU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2. SHRI. HONNAPPA @ MOHAN KUMAR S/O BABU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. SHRI. TAGORE @ RAVI KUMAR S/O BABU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O BABU POOJARI SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS WIFE. SMT. HARINAKSHI K. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O BABU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319412026 NC: 2026:KHC:51720 WP No. 14652 of 2026 PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT -573 218. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UMESHA A., COUNSEL FOR SRI. A K VASANTHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN -573218. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKALAESHPURA SUB DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573218. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, ALURU TALUK, ALURU, HASSAN DISTRICT-573218. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN R.A. NO.12/2007-08 DATED 16.10.2014 (VIDE ANNEXURE D) BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIDE NCR NO. 106/84-85, DATED 13.07.1984 (VIDE ANNEXURE A); AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010319412026 NC: 2026:KHC:51720 WP No. 14652 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 16.10.2014 in R.A.No.12/2007-08(Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.1, under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 3. In this regard, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Writ Petition may be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy as the petitioners are having efficacious remedy before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 4. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition as the petitioners have to exhaust the remedy available under law. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13