Disposed¶36

Sri. Uday Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026WP/15807/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uday Kumar v. State of Karnataka and others, NC: 2026:KHC:26105, WP No. 15807 of 2026 (KLR-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, E.S. Indiresh J., decided 03.06.2026. Keywords: alternative/remedy relegation, efficacious statutory remedy, Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 Section 136(2), Taluk Regularization Committee, Kalasa/Chikamagalur, Assistant Commissioner order 24.04.2026, Case No. LNDRUC/127/2025, Annexure-A, condonation Section 14 Limitation Act, petition disposed with liberty to approach Competent Authority; no cases cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; time spent by the petitioner before this Court condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. ¶36

Sri. Uday Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by respondent No.3 in Case No. LNDRUC/127/2025 (said to be passed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964), should have his writ petition decided on merits, or whether he should be relegated to the efficacious remedy of approaching the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Act.

¶36

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to approach the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and disposed of the petition with liberty to approach that authority.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The time spent by the petitioner before this Court is to be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (KLR-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an agriculturist challenging the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner, Chikamagalur Sub-Division, in Case No. LNDRUC/127/2025 (Annexure-A), stated to have been passed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Learned AGA contended the petitioner had an efficacious remedy under the Act. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh held (oral order dated 03.06.2026) that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to approach the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Act, disposed of the petition with liberty to so approach, and directed that the time spent before the Court be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. No precedent was cited or considered.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26105 WP No. 15807 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 15807 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. UDAY KUMAR, S/O. LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HEMMAKKI VILLAGE, KALASA HOBLI AND TALUK, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 121.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKAMAGALUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:26105 WP No. 15807 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR AND SECRETARY, TALUK REGULARIZATION COMMITTEE, KALASA TALUK, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE, .,ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.04.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.LNDRUC/127/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶29

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A.

¶30

Learned AGA submitted that since the

¶31

impugned order is passed under Section 136(2) of the

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26105 WP No. 15807 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'Act') the petitioner is having efficacious remedy under the Act.

¶35

In that view of the matter, without expressing

¶36

any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy to approach Competent Authority under the provisions of the Act. The petition is disposed of with a liberty to approach Competent Authority under the provisions of the Act.

¶37

It is also made clear that the time spent by the petitioner before this court be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶40

Sri. Uday Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Uday Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh D R Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt H P Vanajakshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Padmavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Basavaraju Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Manohar M K Vs the Deputy Commissioner