HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the tahsildar at anncxure-h as with-drawn. That order impugned is the resultant of non-application of mind to the relevant circumstances and non-compliance of principles of natural justice. On the face of it, according to petitioner order suffers from non-compliance of principles of natural Justice as such, this court can exercise its power under article 226 in such matters without driving a party to exhaust an alternative remedy of an appeal. ( 2 ) TO substantiate that order at Annexure-H is the resultant of non-compliance of principles of natural justice, petitioner narrates that sy. No. 37 of mustrahalli village is a government kharab katte and petitioner earlier was in unauthorised occupation of an extent of 2 acres and 1 gunla. His name came to be entered in the rtc extract for the years 81-82 to 86-87. But he became an authorised holder by virtue of a grant order made in his favour as it is clear at anncxure 'b'. In view of the grant made, petitioner went on paying kandayam regularly to the government. His name came to be included in revenue records as evidenced at annexure-'c' to 'p. At Annexure-H tahsildar passed an order to delete the name of the petitioner on three grounds viz. , there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the land in question (2) nothing to show that the land was granted to him or any one else at any time (3) no evidence to show that t. t. was ever levied. 1. According to the petitioner the alleged spot inspection, a make believe one he has never notified about spot inspection. For these reasons petitioner wants that the order in question be quashed and an opportunity of hearing be given afresh to himself and others who are interested. 2. Petitioner contends when illegality is looms large and order itself is illegal, to drive him to exhause an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the assistant commissioner will be an empty formality. ( 3 ) THIRDLY: when this court can on the material available can come to a conclusion, about the illegality or otherwise of an order under challenge in a given case. ( 3 ) THIRDLY: when this court can on the material available can come to a conclusion, about the illegality or otherwise of an order under challenge in a given case. ( 4 ) HE contends that i. a. i filed for im-pleading to come on record as additional respondent need not be considered as they are neither necessary nor proper parties to these proceedings. According to him these applicants were never in possession of land in question. Their main intention is to harass and pressurise the petitioner. 3. As against the said contentions sri. Ajay kumar paril appearing for the applicants who like tacome on record as additional respondents contend that the order at Annexure-H is the one passed taking into consideration the facts which were existing on that day. At no time petitioner was in possession of the land in question and it was also not granted to him which according to him is clear from Annexure r-2 and r-3 produced in support of his application. Thirdly: he contends when it is not in dispute the property in question is a government karab katte, not only the applicants, but all the villagers are interested in such karab land as it is vested in the state. In any way the petitioner is aggrieved of order at anncxure-h he can as well prefer an appeal before the assistant commissioner. 4. Sri kantharaj, learned government pleader completely concurred with the arguments of Mr. Ajay kumar patil. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing both sides, taking into consideration the rival contentions and going through the pleadings, I am of the view that it is not a case where this court can exercise its power under article 226 to quash the order under challenge. The reasons are as follows:- no doubt exhaustion of Rule of statutory remedies before a writ will be granted, is a Rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a Rule of law. This court may in exceptional case, issue a discretionary writ. It is true a relief in a writ of mandamus will be larger in nature. The reasons are as follows:- no doubt exhaustion of Rule of statutory remedies before a writ will be granted, is a Rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a Rule of law. This court may in exceptional case, issue a discretionary writ. It is true a relief in a writ of mandamus will be larger in nature. It is also true whenever there is (i) transgression of any of the Provisions of the act or law depriving a person's fundamental right, (ii) or an authority who is supposed to act under a law, in a particular manner has not acted in that manner, (iii) a quasi judicial authority has passed an order giving a go by to the principles of natural justice, (iv) complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority or tribunal who has passed an Order, (v) in the absence of sufficient material to arrive at a conclusion, (vi) where the act is ultravires or unconstitutional or, (vii) alternative remedy is not speedier definitely this court can interfere under article 226. At the same time, court shall also to take into consideration while considering relief under article 226 of the constitution, that merely because principles of natural Justice are complied with, relief be granted, not when disputed question of facts are involved. Such disputed facts can be sorted out only by looking into the documents and hearing parties concerned. Under such circumstances it is just and proper to ask the parlies to go to the appellate forum where both will have sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence and also request such appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence on the material made available and take an independent view other than the one already taken by an authority whose order has come to be challenged. ( 6 ) IN the instant case from perusal of the order at Annexure-H supported by annexure-r-2 and r-3 one thing is clear the stand of the petitioner is at variance with the findings given by tahsildar. Because, according to the petitioner from 1982 till 1987 he was in unauthorised occupation. His name came to be entered in rtc extracts. Later he became authorised holder by virtue of an order of grant. Department started collecting assessment or kandayam from him. Khatha also changed in his favour. These are the instances which the petitioner desires to rely upon to establish that. there was a grant. His name came to be entered in rtc extracts. Later he became authorised holder by virtue of an order of grant. Department started collecting assessment or kandayam from him. Khatha also changed in his favour. These are the instances which the petitioner desires to rely upon to establish that. there was a grant. Thus he is entitled to get his name entered in rcr. As against this finding of the tahsildar: i) there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in possession at any time of the land; (ii) no order of grant is forthcoming. , wherein the land has been granted in his favour, (iii) land in dispute is a part of government katte, unless the same brought under availability, grant could not have been granted, (iv) no material to show that at any time the department collected t. t. fine assessment or kandayam from the petitioner. ( 7 ) WHEN the material relied on by both the sides make one to believe as if each party is correct in his own way, it is not proper to ask the parties to go again before the tahasildar and prove their genuineness who according to petitioner has prejudiced. It is proper and saves time, if the assistant commissioner hears both the parties on merits. Hence, Justice will be met, if i ask the petitioner to approach the assistant commissioner by way of an appeal under Section 136 (2) of the K. L. R. Act, 1964. ( 8 ) HENCE, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the assistant commissioner to entertain an appeal if petitioner files such an appeal, within six weeks from the date of this order. If such an appeal is filed, assistant commissioner shall entertain including an application, if any, to be filed by the petitioner for an interim order. It is also made clear that the applicants who like to come on record as necessary parlies or otherwise shall approach the assistant commissioner who has to decide the same on merits. All other contentions of the petitioners arc left open. No costs. Sri kantharaj is directed to file memo of appearance within four weeks. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .