- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.65239 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. ASHOK KHENY AGED 67 YEARS, S/O MR MAHARUDRAPPA KHENY MANAGING DIRECTOR, NANDI INFRASTUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES, MIDFORD HOUSE, M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. MR T MAHADEV AGED 41 YEARS, S/O THAMMEGOWDA, VICE PRESIDENT, NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES, MIDFORD HOUSE, M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. MR MANJUNATH NAYAKER AGED 40 YEARS, S/O NAGARAJ VICE PRESIDENT PR NANDI INFRASTUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES, MIDFORD HOUSE, M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. MR SUDHAKAR HEGDE AGED 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 S/O LATE SHIVRAM HEGDE, CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES, MIDFORD HOUSE, M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.K.SRIKARA AND SRI. KESHAV KUMAR S., ADVOCATES FOR SRI. M.B. ANIRUDH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE M KRISHNAPPA DIRECTOR OF INDIAN NAVY (RETD) NO.3, PRIYADARSHINI ESTATE, NATIONAL PARK ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 083. RESPONDENT NO.1, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.06.2026) 2. MRS SHEELA H AGE MAJOR, W/O MR HANUMANTHAPPA, NO.3, PRIYADARSHINI ESTATE, NATIONAL PARK ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 083. 3. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, C F C BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.10.2018) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMANA NAGANANDA AND SRI. ANEESH KRISHNA, ADVOCATES FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. A.C.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.02.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CASE NO.72 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCs & STs, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners, who are the respondents in a complaint filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Article 338-A of the Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act of 2002’) and Section 3(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act of 1989’) are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order of like nature quashing the Complaint dated 19.02.2010 produced at Annexure – A filed by the respondents in Case No.72 of 2010 on the file of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission for SCs and STs, Bengaluru; (b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order of like nature quashing the impugned order dated 27.10.2016 passed by Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission for SCs and STs, Bengaluru produced at Annexure – B; (c) Award cost of this petition; and (d) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in Sy.No.3 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas of Pillaganahalli Village, which is claimed by the respondents herein was the subject matter of acquisition by the State for the purpose of implementation of Project known and called as ‘Bangalore – Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project’. Challenge to the said acquisition was raised by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.9677/2004, which came to be dismissed on 18.11.2005 and the same has been affirmed by the Apex Court in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 C.A.Nos.3492-94/2005 and connected matters vide judgment and order dated 20.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683. Respondent No.2 filed another writ petition in W.P.No.14998/2009 for a direction that the said land in Sy.No.3 of Pillaganahally Village shall not be used for implementation of the said project. The said writ petition was however dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.06.2009. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.15641/2009 seeking deletion of the said land from the notification, which petition was also dismissed by order dated 15.06.2011 upholding the acquisition of the said land. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have preferred Special petition in SLP(C) No.20722/2011 (CA 974/2013) before the Apex Court where an interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo has been granted and the matter is still pending consideration. 4. That things stood thus, respondents have filed the instant complaint before the Commission making allegations having no basis. It is submitted that though there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein, who are the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 respondents in the said complaint before the Commission, of committing any offence or causing any breach of rights of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Commission has issued notice to the petitioners. That the petitioners represented through their counsel filed statement of objections seeking dismissal of the said complaint. However, the Commission proceeded with the matter for a period of three years. Despite Commission having been brought to the notice regarding pendency of the matter before the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.20722/2011 (CA 974/2013) and the interim order of status-quo passed therein, the Commission insisted for the personal presence of the petitioners on the premise that their presence was necessary for hearing on the memo filed by the petitioners. Without even considering the facts of the case or the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, the Commission proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 27.10.2016 directing personal presence of petitioner No.1 before the Commission on 29.12.2016 failing which a warrant would be issued against petitioner No.1. It is this, which has constrained the petitioners to approach this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also draws attention of this Court to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ganganna Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2020 SCC Online Kar 4967 and submits that the subject matter of the present petition is squarely covered by the said order wherein the said petition was allowed and the impugned order therein was quashed since the Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitions of such nature as contemplated in the Act. Hence, seeks for allowing the petition. 6. In response, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 taking through the contents of the complaint filed by them before respondent No.3 – Commission submits that the allegation of high handedness by the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 before the Commission is with reference to land in Sy.No.3 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas as well as land in Sy.No.2/15 measuring 9.25 guntas of Pillaganahalli Village. The challenge to the acquisition was only in respect of land in Sy.No.3, which is now pending before the Apex Court and not in respect of land in Sy.No.2/15. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 Therefore, the order of status-quo granted by the Apex Court is applicable only in respect of land in Sy.No.3 and not land in Sy.No.2/15. 7. Learned counsel further refers to the Act of 2002 and Rules 10 and 12 of the Rules, 2012, to justify the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the cognizance taken thereof by the Commission. She submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 belonged to depressed class and the Act, 2002 and Rules, 2012 are only meant to safeguard their constitutional and statutory rights, breach of which by the petitioners herein is complained, which is being redressed and the same cannot be found fault with. Extensively reading the contents of the complaint she submits that the initial steps taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 complaining their difficulty to the Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road, Bangalore, fell on deaf ear, which prompted and constrained them to approach the Commission. Considering the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had no other option but to seek intervention of the Commission, as such, no error or irregularity can be found in the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2, which is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 being conducted by respondent No.3 – Commission. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused records. 9. There is no dispute of the fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had approached this Court as many as on three occasions by challenge to the acquisition of the land in Sy.No.3 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas and all the petitions have resulted in dismissal and the matter is now seized off before the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.20722/2011 (CA 974/2013), wherein order of status-quo has been granted. Though counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 clarified that the said challenge and the order of status-quo was only with reference to land in Sy.No.3 and not in respect of land in Sy.No.2/15, the same would also not make much of difference considering the allegations made in the complaint. The allegations in the complaint are of two fold. 10. Firstly, abusing respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the filthy language that to in the name of their caste which is at paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the complaint, which indicates that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 on 30.05.2009 at about 07.30 A.M., some persons came near the land with JCB with their men and when the complainant obstructed them, two persons started abusing them with the language reflected in the said paragraph. The said averments do not indicate which are those two persons. Nothing is identified therein. Though a complaint claimed to have been given in this regard to the Sub-Inspector, Bannerghatta Police Station and also to the Commissioner of Police on 04.06.2009, it is alleged no action in this regard has been initiated. 11. Secondly, with regard to the alleged dispossession and destruction of the property belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2. In that regard, paragraph No.7 of the complaint filed before the respondent No.3 indicates that on 02.07.2009 at about 07.00 A.M. some 200 members as if to be Nice Company people came with two JCBs and several trucks without any notice or information and started felling trees in the premises, namely, 30 coconut trees, 28 silver oak trees, 15 sappota trees, 15 mango trees and nearly 700 coconut saplings, 200 other plant saplings were also destroyed and other articles viz., wooden dining table, 6 chairs, 2 double cots, 2 single cots, 2 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 dressing table, 1 showcase, 2 TVS scooters, 1 music system, several other cars and tractor spares kept in the garage were demolished and crushed to pieces. 12. It is these two aspects of the complaint, which is now being considered by the respondent No.3 – Commission. The reliefs sought for in the complaint are of the following nature: “(i) To direct the opposite parties / respondents to restore the complainants property rights and (ii) To direct the jurisdictional police to give protection to the petitioners / complainants lives from the endangering situation. (iii) To direct the jurisdictional police to register appropriate criminal case against the opposite parties / respondents. (iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of costs, in the interests of justice and equity.” 13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order passed in the case of Ganganna (supra), adverting to the provisions of Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002, at paragraph Nos.19, 20 and 21 has held as under: “19. It is clear from the afore extracted provisions that the commission is enjoined with functions to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided under Constitution of India or any other law intended for the welfare and protection of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of their rights and safeguards under the Constitution. Section 10 of the Act empowers the Commission to carry out investigation for the purposes of investigating any matter under Section 8 for which, the Commission has the powers of a Civil Court. 20. A reading of the provisions would lead to an unmistakable interpretation that the functions entrusted to the Commission are in the nature of investigation and examination of various safeguards provided to the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. The provisions of the Act do not clothe the Commission with such powers to entertain the petition that is filed by a grantee seeking restoration of land and investigate into the matter. 21. The fifth respondent-Commission is not the one that is created under the relevant statute namely, the said Act as an appellate authority over the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The remedy of appeal provided against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner is only to the Deputy Commissioner. In the structure of the statutory provisions of the said Act, the commission has no role to play. Merely because the functions and powers of the Commission are as extracted hereinabove, will not confer the Commission with jurisdiction to entertain petitions seeking restoration of land. Therefore, the very act of Commission entertaining the petition filed by the fourth respondent, assuming jurisdiction to itself as an appellate authority over the order of the Assistant Commissioner is blatantly contrary to the provisions of the said Act, without jurisdiction and is non est in the eye of law. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings before the fifth respondent bearing No.Adesha /Dourjanya / CR.59 / 2012-13 in Case No.98/2012 vide Annexure ‘Q’ are quashed.” 14. The contents in the complaint read in the light of the aforesaid order indicates that the respondents are seeking determination of their rights over the land in Sy.Nos.3 and 2/15 and also seeking restoration of the same. Claim of the respondents in respect of land in Sy.No.3 is seized before the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.20722/2011 (CA 974/2013). Thus, as rightly pointed by learned counsel the petitioners, it is outside the jurisdiction and purview of the respondent – Commission. 15. As regards the second aspect of the complaint of respondent Nos.1 and 2 being subjected to humiliation by “some persons”, this Court deems it appropriate to reserve liberty to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file appropriate complaint in this regard before the concerned jurisdictional authority inasmuch as the complaint as it is, apart from being vague and ambiguous, does not give the specifics of the alleged incident and persons who committed. Allegations made and reliefs sought before the Commission are too general and omnibus - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30114 WP No. 65239 of 2016 without any specifics. The Commission lacks jurisdiction to investigate into such aspect of the matter, as the same is also covered under the provisions of the Act of 1989 and allowing of the proceedings to continue before the Commission in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances would amount to abuse of process of law. 16. Accordingly, petition is allowed. 17. Proceedings in Case No.72/2010 before respondent No.3 – Commission is hereby quashed. It is made clear that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to initiate such proceedings within the provisions of the Act of 1989, if they are so advised and desired. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25