The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and precise notice, the need to exercise power within a reasonable period, and the implications of delay in exercising revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

M.I.Arun, J. - Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 06.06.2020 bearing No.L.N.D (POO) CR/104/2019-20 issued by respondent no.2 and the consequent suo motu proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 against the petitioners, the instant writ petition is filed.

3. One late George Thangaiah, who was the husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos.2 and 3, was granted a total of 16 guntas of lands in Survey Nos.2/2, 7/1A and 7/1B of Binnamangala Manavarthe Kaval Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk vide order dated 26.12.1975 for non-agricultural purpose. It was granted at an upset price of Rs.12,000/- per acre. After the death of George Thangaiah, the petitioners have inherited the same and are in peaceful possession of the same. The said George Thangaiah was also the owner of certain adjoining lands to the property granted to him. The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA') thereafter has sanctioned development plan in respect of the property in question way back in the year 1977 and the said property has been developed. The fact that the property was allotted for non-agricultural purpose and the BDA sanctioning a development plan indicates that the property in question is no longer a kharab land.

4. Late George Thangaiah and the petitioners have been in enjoyment of the property since the date of its allotment in the year 1975. However, the respondents with an ulterior motive have been issuing certain show cause notices and initiating certain proceedings since 2016. The petitioners have duly replied to those notices and are defending themselves in the proceedings initiated against them. The present impugned notice has been issued as late as 06.06.2020 under Rule 25(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The said notice is issued on the ground that the lands in question are "B" kharab lands and the same were not allotted to the petitioners in accordance with law. On the said ground, the petitioners have been asked to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled and the lands be appropriated by the Government.

5. The petitioners have participated in the proceedings pursuant to the said notice. When the proceedings were going on, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent no.2 has passed an order cancelling the allotment of 16 guntas of phut kharab lands in Survey Nos.2/2, 7/1A and 7/1B of Binnamangala Manavarthe Kaval village. The petitioners in the instant writ petition, as mentioned above, have sought for quashing of the show cause notice and the consequential proceedings.

6. The petitioners have sought for quashing the show cause notice on the ground that the proceedings for cancellation are being issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 while the allotment was made under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); the issuance of notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice and it is barred by time; the act of the BDA and other authorities sanctioning development plan amounts to an estoppel on respondents from issuing such notice; and the notice issued is not in accordance with law.

7. The respondents have filed their objections statement and have raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is premature and what has been issued is only a show cause notice. The petitioners have participated in the same and they cannot prefer a writ petition. Section 49 of the Act provides for an appeal from the original orders and it is an alternative and efficacious remedy. In the light of the same, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition. All the grounds raised by the petitioners in the writ petition have been considered by respondent no.2 in his order dated 19.08.2020. The finding is that the predecessor in title of the petitioners h