- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29195 WP No. 21262 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21262 OF 2025 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAZEEN BANU W/O FAZIL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-AMEER SUHAIL NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. 2. SRI. AMEER SUHEL S/O FAZAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. 3. SRI. SAFEEL AHMAD CF S/O FAZAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29195 WP No. 21262 of 2025 ATTORNEY HOLDER-AMEER SUHAIL S/O FAZAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. 4. SRI. RAHIL AHMAD S/O FAZAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-AMEER SUHAIL S/O FAZAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. 5. SRI. FARAJ AHMAD F.C, S/O FAZAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-AMEER SUHAIL S/O FAZAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NEAR BHADRIYA MASJID, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29195 WP No. 21262 of 2025 SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. ZONAL FOREST OFFICER OFFICE OF RANGE FOREST OFFICE CHIKMAGALUR RANGE, VEERASHAIVA MAHASABHA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BYPASS ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS/ORDERS, QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 20-02-2025 BEARING NO. 2103/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29195 WP No. 21262 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who assert ownership of certain lands in Indavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkamagaluru District, are aggrieved by the repeated notices issued by the second respondent, and these notices, which are as per Annexures-F and G, are dated 20.02.2025 and 21.06.2025. 2. Sri P. P. Hegde, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the earlier proceedings inter se the petitioners and certain third parties, the Revenue Authorities have verified the genuineness of the ground claimed holding that the petitioners [their predecessors-in-interest] have been granted land in a gomala and notwithstanding the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29195 WP No. 21262 of 2025 same, the second respondent has repeatedly issued notices only for extraneous reasons. 3. Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that the second respondent is constrained to issue repeated notices because though the petitioners have caused some reply to the first notice, they have not produced any document. In rejoinder, Sri P. P. Hegde, the learned Senior counsel, proposes to refute this assertion. 4. Be that as it may, when the jurisdiction of the second respondent is not called in question, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice but is persuaded to direct the second respondent to consider all facts/documents by a reasoned order and communicate the decision to the petitioners within a certain time frame. This Court is also persuaded to opine that the petitioners, to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29195 WP No. 21262 of 2025 ensure such decision, must produce another set of documents that they rely upon including the decisions in the earlier proceedings between themselves and certain third parties. In the light of the above, the petition stands disposed of by the following: ORDER (i) The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file an additional set of documents with the second respondent within eight [8] weeks from today directing the second respondent to consider those documents by a reasoned order and communicate the outcome of the notice to the petitioners. (ii) The second respondent shall communicate such decision to the petitioners within four [4] weeks from - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29195 WP No. 21262 of 2025 the date of receipt of the documents as now enabled. (iii) It is needless to observe that unless and until the second respondent takes a decision as now enabled, the parties must maintain status-quo. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE VM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK