Dismissed

Rangarajappa v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024WP/26816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, holding that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 136(3). Liberty was reserved to approach the appropriate authority with condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to approach appropriate authority with condonation of delay.

Rangarajappa Vs the Tahasildar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47184 WP No. 26816 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 26816 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RANGARAJAPPA,

¶7

S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶8

BASAVARAJU,

¶9

S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶10

R/AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶11

THAMANNA,

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

S/O LATE MUNIYIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶14

KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

RAMANNA,

¶16

S/O LATE MUNIYIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶17

R/AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶18

GOPALA,

¶19

S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶20

R/AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47184 WP No. 26816 of 2024

¶22

KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶23

VASUDEVA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KANNURAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE TAHASILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶28

LAKSHMAMMA PAPANNA, W/O LATE R.PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.142, SURVEYOR STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶29

H.V.RAMOJI RAO, S/O LATE H.VENKATARAO, AGED ABOUT YEARS,

¶30

H.V.NARAYANA RAO, S/O LATE H.VENKATARAO, AGED ABOUT YEARS,

¶31

SRI. H.C.LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O LATE CHINNOJIRAO, AGED ABOUT YEARS,

¶32

RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT HOSAKOTE TOWN, (KOTE), KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47184 WP No. 26816 of 2024

¶34

PAPACHAMMA, W/O LATE D.RAMAKIRSHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶35

NANDA KUMAR R., S/O LATE D.RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶36

MURALI, S/O LATE D.RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶37

RESPONDENT NOs.6 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.19, 5^TH CROSS, GARUDACHAR PALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560 048.

¶38

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODABALLAPURA-561 203.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI.HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R1 & R9 NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH [RESPONDENT NOs.2 TO 8])

¶41

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO CASE NO.RA(HO)281/2021 FROM THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.7 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, DATED

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47184 WP No. 26816 of 2024

¶43

01-08-2024 IN CASE NO.RA(HO)281/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶44

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

The petitioners in the instant writ petition have challenged the order passed by respondent No.9 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act').

¶48

The petitioners are having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶49

As the petitioners are having an alternative

¶50

efficacious remedy, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach appropriate authority in the manner known to law.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:47184 WP No. 26816 of 2024

¶53

If they were to prefer such a revision, the authorities concerned shall take into consideration the time spent by

¶54

the petitioners pursuing the instant writ petition while condoning the delay.

¶55

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶56

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Rangarajappa v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangarajappa v. the Tahasildar

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

Smt. Lakshminarasamma Vs the Asst. Commissioner

CART2INDIA Online Retail Private Limited Vs Union of India

The President Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Touchstone Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee Vs Assessment Unit

Sri Bailappa G Vs the State of Karantaka