Writ interference is unwarranted where an appealable revenue order involves disputed questions of fact.

The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 18 June 2026, passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records, and related 11E sketches concerning a 2,300-square-foot extent of land at Nagavara Palya.

He alleged that the order was made without giving him an opportunity to be heard and stated that two civil suits concerning the property were pending.

Respondent No. 5 and the State submitted that the order was appealable under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and that an alternative remedy was available

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the impugned order despite the availability of an appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

Whether the petitioner’s claims, including his contention that he was not heard, warranted writ relief in light of the disputed facts and pending civil suits

Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, provides an appellate remedy against the impugned order; where that remedy is available, the affected party may pursue it in accordance with law.

The Court also considered the disputed factual issues and the pending civil suits when deciding whether to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

No precedent was cited

The Court found that the Assistant Director had registered the matter as a disputed case and that the resulting order was appealable under the Act.

It also noted that civil suits concerning the same subject matter were pending and that the present dispute involved competing claims over 2,300 square feet.

Given the disputed facts and the statutory appellate remedy, the Court declined to decide the merits of the petitioner’s natural-justice challenge in the writ petition and left the parties’ contentions open

It directed that any appeal filed be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and kept all contentions open