ORDER : E.S. Indiresh, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the proceedings in K.SC.ST.No.44/2024 on the file of respondent No.2 (Annexure-A), in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. 2. The facts in nutshell as averred in the writ petition are that, the land bearing Sy.No.7/1 of Thuberahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, to an extent of 2 acres was owned by one Sri. Neeragante Miyappa. The said Sri. Neeragante Miyappa has sold said 2 acres in favour of one Sri. Chinnappa, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 04.03.1966. Thereafter, the said Chinnappa has sold an extent of 1 acre (out of 2 acres) in favour of one Smt. Sampattamma, as per registered Sale Deed dated 14.10.1968. The said Sampattamma, as per registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.1975, sold the same in favour of one Smt. Aleyamma Koshy. The said Aleyamma Koshi, died on 08.01.2001, leaving behind the vendors of the petitioner herein, as her legal heirs. 3. It is further stated that, the land in question is converted for non agricultural purpose as per Official Memorandum dated 30.12.2003 as per Annexure-D. Thereafter, the vendors of the petitioner has sold the same to M/s. Creative Developers, as per registered Sale Deed (Annexure-E), dated 31.01.2004. It is further stated that the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the respondent No.3 herein, suppressing the material facts with regard to the matter concluded by this Court in W.P.No.16290/2012 & W.P.No.19096/2012 which was confirmed in W.A.Nos.4332- 4333/2016 and in W.P.No.13725/2022, has initiated fresh proceedings against the petitioners, before the respondent No.2, and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. B.S. Gautham, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1; Sri. Srinivas Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Guru Prasad C. Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner No.5; and Sri. P.B. Ajith, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4; Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. Srinivas Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Guru Prasad C. Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner No.5; and Sri. P.B. Ajith, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4; Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners that the impugned proceedings before respondent No.2 is not maintainable in view of the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.16290/2012 and W.P.No.13725/2022 wherein, this Court allowed the writ petitions by quashing the impugned proceedings therein. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 sought to justify the impugned proceedings at Annexure-A. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that, the second application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption and restoration of the subject land is not maintainable. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court in W.P.No.16290/2012 & W.P.No.19096/2012, disposed of on 02.09.2016 (Annexure-B), in respect of the same subject land and very same proceedings, arrived at the conclusion that the grantee/petitioner has not established that grant of land made in favour of Miya on 26.11.1940 and the said order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed in W.A.No.4332-33/2016 (Annexure-C), disposed of on 28.07.2017. In the said appeal, this Court has recorded the finding that, there was no original certificate available in the office of the respondent as per the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate. That apart, in the second round of litigation by some of the legal representatives of Miya, in W.P.No.13725/2022 (Annexure- P), disposed of on 23.08.2022, recorded a finding that there was no grant made in favour of Miya as well as delay in invoking the proceedings under the PTCL Act, accordingly, quashed the proceedings. 8. In that view of the matter, in this writ petition, the relief sought for by the petitioners as to the application by some of the legal representatives of Miya claiming right against the respondents therein in K.SC.ST.No.44/2024 (Annexure-A) is not maintainable and taking into consideration that the matter has been concluded in the aforesaid proceedings by this Court, the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction under law to continue the proceedings in K.SC.ST.No.44/2024. 9. In the result, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. 9. In the result, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in K.SC.ST.No.44/2024 before the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. (iii) No order as to costs.