JUDGMENT E.S. Indiresh, J. - Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondents. 2. Though these two writ petitions are arising out of common impugned notice dated 29.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2 herein, however, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners claim to be owners in possession of certain agricultural land and they are carrying out agricultural activities in the aforesaid land by renovating the existing building and have cattles. They have also constructed labour shed with minimum amenities in the said land. Petitioners are also having certain vacant land and as such, they have initiated constructions in the vacant land. The same was objected by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 29.05.2020 directing the petitioners to remove unauthorised constructions in the respective land, as the construction made by the petitioners are in violation of the notification dated 04.10.2012 issued by Forest and Environment Department, Union of India. The petitioners states that, the said impugned notice dated 29.05.2020 is issued by the 2nd respondent, without affording opportunity to the petitioners as well as no enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.2 before issuing impugned show cause notice. Accordingly, the petitioners herein have challenged the impugned notice dated 29.05.2020 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submitted that writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners herein have challenged the show cause notice. He also submitted that the impugned show cause notice is issued under Section 96(1) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by the competent authority and as such, writs petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. I have perused entire case papers and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the owners in possession of respective land and the competent authority have issued mutation and RTC in favour of the petitioners. 5. I have perused entire case papers and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the owners in possession of respective land and the competent authority have issued mutation and RTC in favour of the petitioners. However, the petitioners herein are putting up certain construction in the schedule land and the show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 as the same is in violation of Section 95(2) of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and also by Government Order dated 04.10.2012 issued by the Government of India, Forest and Environment Department, Union of India, New Delhi. During the course of arguments, learned HCGP fairly submits that no notice is issued by the respondent No.2 before passing impugned notice. In view of the submission made by the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners and learned HCGP at bar, since no opportunity is given to the petitioners to make necessary reply to the impugned notice, in the ends of justice, petitioners are permitted to make necessary reply to the impugned notice and the respondent authorities are at liberty to take action in furtherance of the reply made by the petitioners in accordance with law. It is incumbent upon the respondent to state in show cause notice that the competent authority intended to impose a penalty of blacklisting so as to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity to show cause against the same by way of reply. In view of the law declared by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES Vs. GOVERNMENT (NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS, (2014) 9 SCC 105 , the impugned notice dated 29.05.2020 is quashed. 5. In an identical circumstance, this Court, by order dated 09.07.2020 in W.P No.8660/2020, has disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2 and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 with a direction to respondent No.2 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner therein to file objections and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER 1. Writ Petitions are allowed 2. The impugned notice dated 29.05.2020 issued by respondent No.2 is set aside. 3. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER 1. Writ Petitions are allowed 2. The impugned notice dated 29.05.2020 issued by respondent No.2 is set aside. 3. The proceedings are remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration and respondent No.2 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners for filing objections and to consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter, pass appropriate order. Ordered accordingly.