Mahendi'a Siagli, aged about 60 S/o. late Gyeui Siagh, resident of Madhuwaa, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Ta.h.sil aiid District Silaspiir (C.G.' State of Chhattisgarli, fhrough Secretary, Urbaa Developiaeiit Departaieat, Secretariat, DKS Bhawaa Raipiu- (C.G.) Miuiicipal Corporation, Bilaspiir fhrough. ComTnissioiler, Muiucipal Corporation, Bilaspiy (C.G. Sub Divisioaal Of&cer (R) aiid Laad Acquisition Officer, Bflaspur (C.G.) MufcvaUi, Masjid, Juna Buaspur, Tahsil arsd District Biiaspiir (C. G-.) C.G. Waqf Board, Raipur (C.G.) thK>us.fa C.faief Execiitive Offier. Shri K.M. Aasaii, couasel for fhe pctitionsr. ShriA.S. Kachhawalia, counsel for respondentNo.2 on aclvance copy. Slui Ajay Dwivedi, Paiiel Lawyer for the State on advance CODV. Heard on admission. The petitioner, who claims to toe fhe tenaiit of tiie concerued propeiw, has filed fhis petition fbr qiiashiaent of the proceeduigs itiitiated under fhe provisions of Laad Acqiiisition Act, 1894. Leai-ned counsel for fbe petitioner aj-gues fhat a notice ia Qiis regard (Annexure-P/1) dated 7.4.2006 was issued to Qie petitioner toy tiie Sub DivisioTial Of&cer (Revenue) and Land Acquisition Of&cer, Bilaspur. He also siibiaits fhat fhe reply to fhe notice has been filed by the petitioner before fi-ie concemed aufhority but no order Iias beeii passed tiU now. W.P.(C) No, 4338 of 2007 It is setfled pruiciple of law ffaat ordiiiaidly a writ coiirt woi.ild not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaiaillg a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause iiiuess it is witfaout jurisdiction. TIie - petitioner is not saying fhat the notice is •i.rithout jurisdiction but he is simply sa^dng tlaat he is aggrieved by fhe action of respondent by which they liave initiated the proceedings for acqiiisition oflaild in question. Needless to say Uiat tlie pifh of tlie laatter is that a proceedings uiider Sectioii 6 of tiie Laiid Acqiiisition Act, 1894 lias been iiiitiated, in. coinpUance of which, a geaeral notice under Sectiou 6 of Gie said Act, vide Aiinexure-P/2, Iias been published. A personal notice has also been served upoa tlie petitioiier vide Annexure-P/1 and tlie action, whicli is statutorily supported by fhe provisions ofAct is pendiag after takuig reply. I aia not iacliaed to iHterfere with fhe laatter at tliis stage because there is no outcom.e tffl date after issuazice of notice and filing of the reply. Tlie petition appears to be preiaature atld tlie same is sumiaarily disiaissed at fhe raotion stage. In viei? oftlie above, I.A. No. 1 for grant ofad-inteitm relief stands disposed of. Sdi- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti