- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6563 WP No. 101520 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100957 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 101520 OF 2025 (SCST-) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 100957 OF 2025 IN WP NO.101520/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. A KANDAN S/O. LATE R. ANAND AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.2004 AZAD NAGAR, 22ND WARD HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANGAR – 587301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE HARIJANA HANUMANTHAPPA AGED MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: D.NO. 152, 35TH WARD, ISHWAR NAGAR, NEAR BAJUPE SCHOOL, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE-587301. DIST. VIJAYANGAR. 3. SRI. M. HULAGAPPA S/O. LATE HARIJANAPPA AGED MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: D.NO. 152, 35TH WARD ISHWAR NAGAR, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6563 WP No. 101520 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100957 of 2025 NEAR BAJUPE SCHOOL, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE - 587301. DIST. VIJAYANGAR. 4. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. LATE HARIJANAPPA AGED MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O: D.NO. 152, 35TH WARD, ISHWAR NAGAR, NEAR BAJUPE SCHOOL, HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANGAR – 587301. 5. SMT. MALIGE SHIVAMMA W/O. M. HULAGAPPA AGED MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: D.NO. 152, 35TH WARD, ISHWAR NAGAR, NEAR BAJUPE SCHOOL, HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANGAR – 587301. 6. SMT. MALIGE PADMA W/O. NINGAPPA AGED MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O: D.NO. 152, 35TH WARD, ISHWAR NAGAR, NEAR BAJUPE SCHOOL, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANGAR – 587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; R2, R3, R4, R6 & R5 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 27-1-2025 BEARING ACK. NO. RD0050000697917 CASE ID. PTCL/09/2024 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BEARING ACK NO.RD0050000697917 CASE ID.PTCL/09/2024 ON - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6563 WP No. 101520 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100957 of 2025 THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS. IN WP NO.100957/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. SAMEER SIDDIQUE S/O. MUNEER SIDDIQUE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULURE, R/O: HARIHAR ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE - 581313, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR – 581313. 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 – 581313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP, FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 31-1-2025 BEARING ACK NO.RD0050000700694 CASE ID.PTCL/02/2025 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BEARING ACK NO.RD0050000700694 CASE ID.PTCL/02/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6563 WP No. 101520 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100957 of 2025 CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notices dated 27.01.2025 and 31.01.2025 respectively, produced as per Annexures-F and C. 2. Heard Sri.G.I.Gachchinmath, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record. 3. In both the petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the notice issued calling upon them to show cause why an enquiry shall not be held in the matters. It is the contention of the petitioners that the lands in question were granted in favour of the original grantees long back, and there was change in mutation entries on the basis of the registered - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6563 WP No. 101520 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100957 of 2025 sale deeds. The subsequent purchasers got converted the lands for non-agricultural usage and sites were formed in the same. Thereby, the nature of the lands, which were originally granted have changed. It is thereafter, the original grantees submitted an application to respondent No.1-the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short the ‘PTCL Act’). 4. Acting on such representation, respondent No.1 issued impugned notices, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the proceedings should not be initiated for resumption of the lands. The petitioners straight away approached this Court seeking to quash the notices itself. There is absolutely no reasons assigned by the petitioners in both the petitions as to why the petitioners were anxious to approach the High Court directly, bypassing the appropriate authority that is respondent No.1, who is authorized under the PTCL Act to consider the contentions of both the parties, and pass - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6563 WP No. 101520 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100957 of 2025 appropriate orders either for resumption of land or rejecting such prayer made by the original grantees. If such prayers are considered by this Court, it will set a wrong precedent as the litigants will be forced to approach this Court bypassing the Assistant Commissioner, who is authorized to hold an enquiry under the special enactment. I do not find any reason to bypass the statutory authority authorized to consider the contentions of the parties. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the nature of the lands have already been changed by order of conversion into non- agricultural purposes before filing of the application for resumption, the said application cannot be considered. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Sri.Krishnan Nayar Veliyath V/s. the Assistant Commissioner and others1, wherein the Co-ordinate bench of this Court held in para 24 as under: 1 WP.No.12586/2023 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6563 WP No. 101520 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100957 of 2025 One other reason why the Application for resumption would have to fail is for the reason that the land had been converted for non- agricultural purposes even before the application for resumption had been filed, this court in a catena of decisions has held that once a land has been converted from agricultural to non agricultural purposes the act would not be applicable. 6. Learned counsel also contended that there is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act for resumption of the land. The delay and laches on the part of the original grantees defeats his right. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Laxmi V/s. State of Karnataka and Another 2 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decisions in Chhedi Lal Yadav(D) and Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav(D) Thr. LRs. & Ors.,3 to reiterate the settled position of law that whether statute provides for period of limitation or not. 2 Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2009 3 (2017) 12 SCC 527 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6563 WP No. 101520 of 2025 C/W WP No. 100957 of 2025 The provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. However, there is no explanation as to why to bypass the appropriate authority under the statute. To consider the contentions of the parties, the petitioners could very well raise all these grounds before the respondent No.1 by showing cause as to why the proceedings could not be initiated. Instead of that, the petitioners have rushed to this Court without showing cause for the notices produced as per Annexures-F and C. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitions lack merits and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT: ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14