Sri. Sudhakara Marakala Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri. Sudhakara Marakala Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure-D) cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner set aside; matter to be reconsidered by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner after issuing notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing; all contentions (including suo motu cancellation power) left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy - an appeal under Section 49(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal - bars entertainment of the writ petition challenging the original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition falls within one of the contingencies recognised by the Supreme Court in which an available alternative remedy does not act as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, since the impugned order itself shows that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to reconsider the already-passed conversion order; accordingly the Court entertained the petition notwithstanding the appeal route under Section 49(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the matter requires reconsideration by the Deputy Commissioner; the petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure-D) is set aside, with fresh reconsideration to follow issuance of notice and affording of hearing to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

All contentions of the petitioner are left open, including the question whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise suo motu powers to cancel an order of conversion that is already passed - a point expressly left undecided by this Court.obiter¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land conversion - Cancellation without notice - Alternative remedy not an absolute bar. The petitioner's conversion permission (Official Memorandum dated 16.02.2022, Annexure-A, in respect of 7 cents in Survey No.19/43, Giliyara village, Kota Hobli, Brahmavara Taluk) was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, by order dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure-D) without any notice to him. The State contended that an appeal under Section 49(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was the efficacious remedy. Relying on and applying Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (AIR 1999 SC 22), the Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice R Devdas) held that an available alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where the impugned order reveals a violation of the principles of natural justice - here, no notice preceded reconsideration of the conversion order. The writ petition was partly allowed: the cancellation order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh reconsideration after notice and hearing; all contentions, including whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise suo motu powers to cancel a passed conversion order, were left open.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:534 WP No. 29394 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 29394 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SUDHAKARA MARAKALA S/O SMT. SUBBA MARAKALTHI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, GILIYAR VILLAGE, POST KOTA- 576221 BRAHMAVARA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT RAJATHADRI

MANIPAL 576 104 UDUPI DISTRICT.

THE TAHASILDAR BRAHMAVARA TALUK, BRAHMAVARA - 576 213 UDUPI DISTRICT.

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KOTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:534 WP No. 29394 of 2025

HC-KAR

KOTA 576 221 BRAHAMAVARA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.V. SESHU., HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN LNA CR (3)/10/2023/113506 DATED. 01.02.2025 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice

for respondents No.1 and 2. Notice to respondent No.3 is not necessary for the following reasons:

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, had earlier issued an Official Memorandum dated 16.02.2022 at Annexure-A, permitting conversion of 7 cents of land in Survey No.19/43, situated at Giliyara

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:534 WP No. 29394 of 2025

HC-KAR

village, Kota Hobli, Brahmavara Taluk, enabling the petitioner to use the said property for residential purposes. However, without notice to the petitioner the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 01.02.2025 cancelling the conversion order. Learned Counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to pass the order on the basis of information said to have been given by respondent No.3-Panchayath Development Officer of Kota Gram Panchayath, who is not in any way concerned with the property in question.

At this juncture learned High Court Government

Pleader raises a primary objection that since the impugned order at Annexure-D, is an original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, an alternative and efficacious remedy is available for the petitioner under Section 49(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to question the same by filing an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:534 WP No. 29394 of 2025

HC-KAR

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that here is a clear case of violation of the principles of natural justice at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order without even issuing notice to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, learned Counsel submits that availability of alternative and efficacious remedy is not a bar on the powers of this Court to entertain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. , reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 has held

that the High Courts have imposed upon themselves certain restrictions, one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its powers or its jurisdiction. However, the Apex Court has consistently held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not act as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Courts in at

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:534 WP No. 29394 of 2025

HC-KAR

least three contingencies, viz., where the writ petition has

been filed for enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or when the vires of an Act is challenged. Therefore, this case falls under one of the three categories enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since it is clear from the impugned order itself that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner could proceed to reconsider the order of conversion already passed by the competent authority.

This Court accepts the contentions of the learned

Counsel for petitioner that since the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 at Annexure-D. However, the matter may be reconsidered by the

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:534 WP No. 29394 of 2025

HC-KAR

respondent-Deputy Commissioner after issuing notice to

the petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All contentions are left open for the petitioner, including the question as to whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise suo motu powers to cancel

an order of conversion that is already passed.

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

DL

CT: JL