THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8000 of 2007 Dated: 19.04.2007 Between: Nagula Vijayalaxmi. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, Karimnagar, and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.8000 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.20 gts in survey No.165/2 and Ac.1.20 gts in survey No.165/3 situated at Vallampahad Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District from one Ch. Laxman and Smt. Sundaragiri Gowramma under registered sale deeds. She alleges that the land was allotted/assigned to her vendors as a part of rehabilitation scheme for project displaced persons. Subsequently she also filed suits, being O.S.No.165 and 676 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Karimnagar, against her vendors for declaration of title. The suits were decreed. Later she approached the revenue authorities and obtained pattadar passbooks (PPBs) and title deeds (TDs). First respondent issued notice bearing No.B/366/2007 dated 31.01.2007 purportedly under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Rules, 1977 (1977 Rules, for brevity) calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the land in her possession should not be resumed for contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (the Act, for brevity). The petitioner submitted explanation on 26.02.2007. In the meanwhile first respondent issued two other notices in respect of said two extents of land in occupation of the petitioner. These notices dated 01.04.2007 were issued under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007 (for short, 2007 Rules). Feeling aggrieved by these notices, the petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1977 Rules and 2007 Rules when the land assigned to Laxman and Gowramma as project displaced persons was not encountered by the condition of non-alienation. He points out that unless and until the assigned land is subjected to the condition of non-alienation, the provisions of the Act are not attracted. The submission is refuted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. It is now axiomatic that against a show-cause notice, writ petition would not lie. Even question of jurisdiction can as well be raised by the recipient of notice before the notice issuing authority. Reference may be made to Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse[1], in which it was held as under. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction 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 highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted. 1977 Rules promulgated vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 02.02.1978 provided for issue of notice to the occupant of the assigned land in Form I. These Rules have been superseded by new set of Rules i.e., 2007 Rules under G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 22.02.2007. Rule 3 thereof contemplates issue of notice in Form I to the assignee and it also contemplates issue of notice in Form II to the transferee of the assigned land. The petitioner admittedly purchased land from Laxman and Gowramma, who are allotted/assigned land as project displaced persons. Therefore, prima facie, first respondent cannot be said to have any jurisdiction. Secondly when the petitioner raises the objection that the land in question is not the assigned land, it is always open to her to approach first respondent and take all steps by producing necessary material, in which case, first respondent before resuming the land has to pass orders after considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the explanation. These observations would be sufficient redressal for the petitioner to dispel any fears that pending consideration of her explanation, she might be dispossessed. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19th April, 2007 Note: Issue CC in one week. B/o ghn [1] (2004)3 SCC 440