JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: "(A) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned order dated 28.09.2016 bearing No. Complaint/Upalok/BGM/1675/2013/SNIKAS-1 passed by Respondent No.2 Annexure-H, in the interest of justice and equity. (B) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned notice dated 02.01.2018 bearing No.HaGiP/Adalita-2/EV/KLo/Vahi-182017-18/147 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-J, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. We have heard Shri Avinash Banakar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner; Smt.Veena Hegde, learned AGA for respondent No.1; Shri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2; Shri Ramesh Misale, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3; respondent Nos.4 and 5 are served and unrepresented. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners are claiming to be the owners in possession of the land bearing VPC Nos.116 to 120 (old Nos.114[A]to[E]) measuring East to West 80 feet and North to South 80 feet contending inter alia that said land came to be allotted/granted in favour of late Shri Karabasappa in the year 1991 by respondent No.4 under Hakku Patra (Annexure-A) and accordingly name of the allotee/grantee Shri Karabasappa was entered in the records of panchayat and his name continued as per Annexures-B to B4. It is also stated that allotee had obtained permission from fourth respondent to construct the house and compound wall and after having paid necessary fees vide Annexures-C and C1 and Municipal Taxes were also paid as per Annexures-D to D13. Construction had been put up. 4. Petitioners further claim that said Karabasappa Hadadi was a Saint and he was running a Math by name Karibasaveshwara of Ukkadagatri in the above properties and was worshiping Lord Karibasaveshwara, which attracted huge devotees. Math is also said to have been registered with District Registrar as per Annexure-E. 5. During his life time, Shri Karabasappa is said to have executed a Will, Annexure-F bequeathing said properties in favour of petitioners and as such petitioners are claiming to be residing in above refereed properties. 6. On account of complaint made before Lokayukta alleging that deceased Karabasappa had encroached gram panchayat property, upon which action not been taken and resolution dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure-G) having been passed by fourth respondent certifying that Karabasappa was the owner, complainant sought for action being taken against said Karabasappa and his successors, who are claiming right over the property in question i.e., petitioners' herein. 7. 7. Subsequently, fifth respondent said to have lodged a complaint against fourth respondent before second respondent contending that original grantee had encroached gram panchayat property and authorities have issued patta without verifying records. Based on the same, respondents are said to have held an inquiry against respondent No.4 and report under Section 12(3) was forwarded to the appropriate Government by the Hon'ble Upa-Lokayukta vide report dated 28.09.2016 (Annexure-H), whereunder respondent No.4 has been directed to take possession of alleged encroached portion in VPC Nos.116 and 117 and report of compliance being submitted. 8. Grievance of the petitioners is that petitioners were not made parties to the said proceedings before second respondent and Math was not a party to the proceedings, which culminated in a report being submitted by second respondent and as such notice dated 02.01.2018 (Aneexure-J) issued by third respondent to fourth respondent should be quashed. 9. Per contra, Shri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Shri Ramesh N.Misale, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would support the impugned report as well as the impugned notice dated 02.01.2018 vide Annexure-J. 10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, we find that insofar as claim of petitioners, which is based on the Will dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure-F) is pending before Jurisdictional Civil Court and as such we are refrain from expressing any opinion in that regard. Likewise, report submitted under Section 12(3) by second respondent is also not disturbed for simple reason that neither petitioners were party to the said inquiry report nor they had participated in the inquiry conducted by second respondent. It is based on the report said to have been obtained by second respondent from Chief Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Hirekerur has been forwarded by Upa-Lokayukta to the appropriate Government for taking steps and filing compliance report. Incidentally in the said report opinion has been expressed with regard to alleged encroachment in respect of the property bearing VPC Nos.116 and 117. Petitioners are claiming right over the said properties by virtue of Hakku Patra (Annexure-A) executed in favour of Shri Karabasappa by the 4th respondent. Incidentally in the said report opinion has been expressed with regard to alleged encroachment in respect of the property bearing VPC Nos.116 and 117. Petitioners are claiming right over the said properties by virtue of Hakku Patra (Annexure-A) executed in favour of Shri Karabasappa by the 4th respondent. This document is in serious dispute and contention has been raised by Shri Ramesh N.Misale, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 that said Hakku Patra itself is void document inasmuch as no right vested with the Mandal Panchayat Pradan to grant or allot said land without express permission from the appropriate Government and as such no right would vest in favour of petitioners' predecessor in title namely the allottee and as such petitioners would not be entitled to claim any right. Even assuming for a moment, said contention is to be accepted, which we do not propose to do inasmuch as alleged encroachment of land or the alleged grant in favour of Karabasappa having not been adjudicated by the Jilla Panchayat or any other competent authority. Hence, no definite conclusion can be arrived at basaed on said Hakku Patra (Annexure-A) as cited above being either void or illegal. When petitioners as well as his predecessor are claiming to be in settled possession of the property, it would be apt and appropriate to permit third respondent authority to initiate appropriate proceedings against them and as such we are of the view that impugned notice dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure-J) can be construed as a show cause notice by the petitioners and they would be at liberty to file objections to it, upon which third respondent shall adjudicate the same. 11. However, in order to protect the interest of both parties and to balance equities, we are of the considered view that proprieties in question shall be maintained by both parties, which is reflected in the photographs produced along with the writ petitions, at Annexure-K series and same status shall be maintained. Petitioners shall also not put up any construction, change the nature of property and/or alter the same or encumber the same till proceedings before third respondent comes to an end. 12. Petitioners shall also not put up any construction, change the nature of property and/or alter the same or encumber the same till proceedings before third respondent comes to an end. 12. In the light of the aforestated discussions, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Wirt petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioners to file objections to impugned communication dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure-J) by treating the same as show cause notice and said objections shall be filed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing of objections, second respondent shall adjudicate the same and conclude the proceedings within three months from the date of filing of such objections. (2) It is also made clear that if for any reason objections are not filed within four weeks from today, third respondent would be at liberty to adjudicate the matter from the available records. (3) Petitioners are also at liberty to file documents in support of their claim, if any, before third respondent and if so filed it shall also be taken into consideration by third respondents while adjudicating the show cause notice dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure-J). Ordered accordingly. I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.