Dismissed¶33

Sri Chikka Eregowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2025WP/26250/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of a writ petition (Articles 226/227 certiorari, KLR-RES) on an alternative-remedy preliminary objection: amendment to Section 136(1), Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (w.e.f. 10.01.2025) routes appeals against Section 136(3) orders to the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal / Karnataka Appellate Tribunal; impugned order dated 06.12.2023 in R Mis. No.179/2023-24; four-week bar on precipitative action by respondents; single-judge bench (R Devdas J.), HC-KAR, NC: 2025:KHC:34165.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal; respondents directed not to take any precipitative action for a period of four weeks; Office directed to return original documents/certified copies to the petitioner retaining copies on file. ¶33

Sri Chikka Eregowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the amendment to Section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 effective 10.01.2025, the petitioner is required to approach the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal (rather than the High Court by way of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227) to question the impugned order.

¶32

Court's answer

Upholding the learned HCGP's preliminary objection founded on the amendment to Section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (w.e.f. 10.01.2025), the writ petition stands dismissed while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

As a protective measure accompanying the dismissal, the respondents are directed not to take any precipitative action for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 26250 of 2025 (KLR-RES) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (R Devdas J., decided 01.09.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:34165). The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash an order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent in R Mis. No.179/2023-24 (Annexure-C). At the preliminary hearing, the learned HCGP raised a preliminary objection that, by reason of the amendment brought to Section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 effective 10.01.2025, the petitioner would have to approach the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal to question the impugned order (described by the HCGP as passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act). Upholding those submissions, the Court dismissed the writ petition, reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and directed the respondents not to take any precipitative action for four weeks. The Court also permitted the HCGP to file a memo of appearance within four weeks and directed the Office to return the original documents/certified copies to the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34165 WP No. 26250 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 26250 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI CHIKKA EREGOWDA, S/O LATE KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKA ANKANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AT MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA – 471 401

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION AT PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 434

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 438

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34165 WP No. 26250 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶22

SRI MOGANNA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT BANDIPALYA MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 025

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT IN R MIS. NO.179/2023-24, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondents No.1 to 4. Notice to other respondents is not necessary for the following reasons:

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34165 WP No. 26250 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned HCGP has raised a preliminary objection that having regard to the amendment brought to Section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, w.e.f., 10.01.2025, the petitioner will have to approach the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal questioning the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act.

¶33

Upholding the submissions made by the learned HCGP, the writ petition stands dismissed while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, the respondents are hereby directed not to take any precipitative action for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

¶34