IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15822 of 2002 Between: P. China Satyanarayana … Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.L.N. Rao for Sri M. Kesava Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15822 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside show cause notice dated 10.08.2002. I have heard Sri K.L.N. Rao representing Sri M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner was granted ‘D’ Form patta over an extent of Ac.0.23 cents in Gottipalli Village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. While, according to the petitioner, the said assignment was made for construction of an oil depot, the respondents have taken the stand that the patta was granted for agricultural purpose. Admittedly, the petitioner constructed a commercial complex over the said land. When this fact came to the notice of respondent No.5, it has issued proceedings dated 18.01.2001, whereby it has requested respondent No.3, District Collector, Srikakulam, to initiate action for cancellation of the assignment, as the petitioner allegedly violated the conditions of the assignment and constructed a commercial complex over the land assigned for agricultural purpose. Accordingly, respondent No.1 issued the impugned show cause notice, wherein the petitioner is called upon to submit his written explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while ordinarily a writ petition questioning show cause notice is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the show cause notice was issued on the directions given by respondent No.5, no useful purpose will be served by approaching respondent No.1 with the explanation, as the latter is the subordinate to respondent No.5. While I appreciate the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is, however, incumbent upon respondent No.1 to decide the issue dispassionately notwithstanding the opinion expressed by respondent No.5 in its Memo dated 18.01.2001. Whether or not the petitioner has violated the conditions of the patta by constructing a commercial complex can be decided with reference to the ‘D’ Form patta and the fact that whether a commercial complex has been constructed or not. If a patta was granted for agricultural purpose, the petitioner is not entitled to raise a commercial complex thereon. On the other hand, if the patta was granted for a commercial purpose, it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the patta. Therefore, these aspects being required to be adjudicated on the basis of the record, respondent No.1 is bound to adjudicate the same without being influenced by the opinion expressed by respondent No.5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. i) The petitioner shall file his explanation to the impugned show cause notice within a period of four weeks from today. In support of his explanation, he is permitted to file the relevant material. ii) Respondent No.1 shall consider the explanation and the material, if any filed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the issue whether the petitioner violated the conditions of the patta and utilized the land for a purpose other than for which the same was assigned. iii) As and when respondent No.1 passes an order, he shall communicate the same to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.19849 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.01.2010 ES