Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Rajeshwari W/o. Muttanna Biraj, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad. She sought a writ of certiorari to quash an entry made by respondent No.5 (Assistant Director of Land Records) and respondent No.6 (City Survey Officer) dated 17.04.2025 in the extract of CTS No.6455 of Anjaney Nagar Sector No.8 M.M. Extension, Belagavi (Annexure-C), and also challenged a notice dated 20.03.2025 issued by respondent No.4 (Tahshildar) bearing No. RRC/CR-47/2024-25 (Annexure-D). The respondents were the State of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner, District Register of Stamps, Tahshildar, Assistant Director of Land Records, and City Survey Officer. At the preliminary hearing, the learned Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the petitioner had an efficacious and alternative remedy available under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. The court considered the preliminary objection and found that the petitioner indeed had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which she had not availed. The court held that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy is a bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court did not issue any notice to the respondents or grant any interim relief.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - The petitioner challenged revenue entries and a recovery notice without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court held that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy bars the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226, and dismissed the petition on this preliminary ground. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition
- Existence of efficacious alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964 Section 49
