Dismissed

Smt Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/4687/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a rejection of names in the RTC register. The Court held that since the Presidency Tahasildar's order was original and appealable under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it declined to entertain the writ under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners at liberty to avail alternate remedy of appeal.

Smt Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4687 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4687 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE MADDURSHETTY W/O SANNAMUKAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT ACHALU VILLAGE SANTHANUR HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 117.

¶9

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MADDURSHETTY W/O MUNINAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶10

SRI. D M MUTHURAJU S/O LATE MADDURSHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

PETITIONER NO.2 & 3 ARE R/AT DUNTHUR VILLAGE SATHANUR HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 126.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 4687 of 2023

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI V SESHU, HCGP)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.RRT/CR/07/2021-22, BANGALORE DATED 10.03.2022 VIDE ANNX-L ISSUED BY THE R-3 AUTHORITY HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Virupakshaiah.P.H., for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.V.Seshu, who has taken notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶28

submit that petitioners are before this Court challenging the endorsement bearing No.DgïDgïn/¹Dgï/07/2021-22 dated 10.03.2022 whereby the petitioners request to enter their names in RTC is rejected.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 4687 of 2023

¶31

Order passed by the third respondent-

¶32

Tahasildar is an original order, against which, Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 1964 Act) provides alternate remedy of appeal. As the Statute provides appeal against Annexure-L, endorsement dated 10.03.2023, I decline to entertain the writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Petitioners are at liberty to avail alternate remedy of

¶35

appeal.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Smt Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thammegowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Joanna Seraphine D Souza Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T. Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sobha Assets Private Limited Vs Special Agricultural Produce Market Committe for Fruits, Flowers and Vegetables

Smt. Padamakshi Vs State of Karnataka

B Mallikarjun Vs the Special Deputy Commissioenr