- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14017-DB WA No. 100262 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT APPEAL NO. 100262 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: SRI. SAMEER SIDDIQUE S/O. MUNEER SIDDIQUE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. HARIHAR ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-587301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-587301. 2. SRI I. JAMBAYYA S/O. LATE THAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO.557, 25TH WARD, JAMBUNATHA ROAD, 3RD CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY Sri SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17-4-2025 MADE IN WRIT PETITION NO.100957/2025 (SC/ST) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND FURTHER ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY GRANTING THE PRAYER MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION. BHARATHI H M Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.27 15:03:43 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14017-DB WA No. 100262 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner in WP No.100957/2025 is before this court under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, questioning the correctness and legality of common order dated 17.04.2025 in WP No.100957/2025 whereunder the appellants in writ petition questioned the notice at Annexure-C issued under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘PTCL Act’). 2. Heard Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the appellant and also learned AGA Sri Sharad V. Magadum for respondent No.1. 3. Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land in question was granted to the appellant on 09.04.1983 and original grantee sold the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14017-DB WA No. 100262 of 2025 land for the first time in the year 1998 and thereafter, the petitioner-appellant purchased the same on 25.05.2007. It is submitted that in the meanwhile on 31.05.2004 original grantee expired. Thereafter, the LRs of original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner issued Annexure-C notice to the petitioner to appear for enquiry. Questioning the said notice under Annexure-C dated 31.01.2025 and the initiation of proceedings, the appellant-petitioner was before this Court. 4. Learned Single Judge under impugned order dated 17.04.2025, noticing that the petitioner-appellant is before this Court questioning the notice issued by the first respondent refused to entertain the petition with liberty to show cause to the notice before the first respondent. 5. Learned counsel Sri G.I.Gachchinmath, for the appellant contends that when the notice is without jurisdiction and that, when the proceedings is initiated under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, after a delay of more than 41 years, it would be open for the petitioner-appellant to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14017-DB WA No. 100262 of 2025 approach this Court and in the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition. Learned counsel also would further submit that the land is converted and layout is formed. 6. We are not in a position to accept the said contentionvof the petitioner/appellant. If the notice is without jurisdiction, the same could be brought to the notice of the authority. If the proceedings are initiated after more than 41 years, the same also could be brought to the notice of the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2020 (14) SCC 232 to contend that only on the question of delay in initiating the proceedings, the proceedings shall have to be set aside. It is true that if there is an inordinate delay, the proceedings shall have to be set aside. Whether there is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings and whether that delay would bar continuation of the proceedings shall - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14017-DB WA No. 100262 of 2025 have to be examined by the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner. When the learned Single Judge in its discretionary jurisdiction has relegated the petitioner to the authority that is first respondent, we are not inclined to interfere with such discretionary order. It is open for the petitioner-appellant to raise such objection before the first respondent and we are sure that the first respondent would consider all such objections and pass appropriate order. With the above observation, the writ appeal stand disposed of. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE VMB ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32