HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (ClNo. 1638 of 2011 PETITIONER Ram Niranjan Dheer,S/o- Late Shreeniwas Dheer, Aged about 70 years, R/o- Rajendra Ward, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. 3 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. 4 Tehsildar, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. 5 Nagar Panchayat- Mungeli, Through- Chief Municipal Officer, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Generat with Mr.Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (25.03.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA.A Heard. The petitioner has challenged the validity of show-cause notice issued by respondent No.4 u/s 248 (1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from demolishing the ^ ,,s»w .:»,. Sf" W.P.(C»N<$. 1638 of2011 house/superstructure raised by the petitioner on the land in question. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, firstly assailed the validity of show-cause notice. He submits that the show-cause notice is a mere formality and it should be quashed. Secondly, he submits that Tehsildar/respondent No.4 is exercising jurisdiction on the instructions of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/respondent No.3 who has directed by issuing a letter dated 14.3.2011 to Tehsildar that incases of unauthorized possession, sent to respondent No.4, respondent No.4 should ensure to remove the unauthorized possession in between 26.3.2011 & 27.3.2011 in accordance with law. It has further been directed in the said letter that for this purpose sufficient police force should be called from Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and the action taken be reported to him. He submits that this shows the malafides of the respondents that they have predetermined to forcefully evict the petitioner within 2 days, even without completion ofthe proceedings initiated u/s 248 (1) ofthe Code 1959. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the writ petition against the show-cause notice may not be entertained and respondent No.4 be allowed to complete the proceedings pending before him and the petitioner may be directed to raise his claim of bonafide possession/ownership or any other claim before the said authority. The show-cause notice is neither without jurisdiction nor is non est in law on account of authority and power to issue it by respondent No.4. In Special Director and Another -Vs- Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another. (2004) 3 SCC 440, the Supreme Court held that "Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show- cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want ofjurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be ^directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands ,P.(C)No.1638 of 2011 ^ highlighted in the writ petition." Therefore, there is no question of quashing the show-cause notice in the writ petition. Regarding the second argument, it appears from the contents of letter dated 14.3.2011, that the S.D.O./respondent No.3 has issued a direction to Tehsildar/respondent No.4 to remove possession of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons within 2 days by calling police force. Such direction of respondent No.3 during the pendency of the proceedings u/s 248 (1) of the Code, 1959 does not appear to be reasonable and the apprehension of the petitioner that he would be dispossessed by force is based on sufficient material. Mr. Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General, argues that the memo dated 14.3.2011 contains that the encroachment should be remove in accordance with law, therefore, it is bonafide. After going through the entire letter dated 14.3.2011 it does not appear that it was a simple direction for concluding the proceedings u/s 248 ofthe Code pending before the concerned Tehsildar. In above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may approach before the concerned Tehsildar; file his reply, if not filed till date; raise all the grounds available to him under the law; and respondent No.4 is directed to conclude the proceedings u/s 248 (1) of the Code, 1959 by giving full opportunity to all the parties and by passing an order in accordance with law without being influenced by letter dated 14.3.2011 issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 to remove the encroachment by using police force. Respondent No.4/Tehsildar would keep in mind that he is functioning as a quasi judicial authority and the proceeding u/s 248 (1) ofthe Code isone ofsummary nature, therefore, he has to give judicious approach in the matter pending before him. It is also directed that no demotish shall take place, unless the proceeding pending before respondent No. 4 is concluded in accordance with the provisions of Section 248 (1) of the Code, 1959 and the practice and procedure which is usually adopted by a revenue authority for -^lisposal of the cases u/s 248 (1) of the Code, 1959. fi^\ i!sl S, '%; ^ -^y W.P.(C)No.1638of2011 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the case shall be decided on its own merits as stated above. Learned Additional Advocate General shall be obliged to convey this order to the concerned authorities so that the proposed demolition may not take place on 26th & 27th of March, 2011. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. ___ „ Noorderastocost. Sunil Smar Sinha Judge vatti