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 and 6 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 bearing No. RRC/CR-47/2024-25 (Annexure-D). The respondents included the State of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner, District Register of Stamps, Tahsildar, 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 alternative remedy under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court, after hearing both sides, upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court did not examine the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The petitioner was directed to approach the Deputy Commissioner under the said provision. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is available.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- Maintainability
- Efficacious remedy
- Section 136 Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (06) 90
WP No. 103262 of 2026 (GM-RES)
S.B. Rahut (for petitioner), Sharad V. Magadum (AGA for respondents)
Smt. Rajeshwari W/o. Muttanna Biraj
The State of Karnataka, The Deputy Commissioner, The District Register of Stamps Belagavi, The Tahsildar, The Assistant Director of Land Records, The City Survey Officer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging revenue entry and notice under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an entry dated 17.04.2025 in the extract of CTS No.6455 and a notice dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Tahsildar.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the entry made by respondent No.5 and 6 and the notice issued by respondent No.4.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
When an efficacious alternative remedy is available under a statute, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedy before invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Additional Government Advocate, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
In view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At the preliminary hearing, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The court heard the objection and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964: Section 136
