THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26300 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by a notice, dated 16.10.2008 issued by the Revenue divisional Officer, Eluru, 2nd respondent herein. Through that notice, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that a complaint was submitted by Sri N.Srinivasa Rao and other residents of Dharmajigudem Village to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad, stating that the land in Survey No.624/1 of that village admeasuring Ac.2.58 cents was gifted by one Sri.Kolli Sriramulu for the benefit of the Village through a document dated 24.03.1999 and that the said land was sold by the petitioner in favour of Smt.Uppalapati Bhavani through a document dated 25.05.2007. He requested the petitioner to place relevant material before him in the enquiry to be conducted on 25.10.2008. The petitioner states that notice is not referable to any provision of law and that the 2nd respondent does not have the right to decide the dispute of this nature. She states that the gift said to have been made by Kolli Sriramulu is without basis and that she had valid title over the property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. It is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent did not mention any provision of law in the impugned notice. As a matter of fact, no proceedings as such are pending before him. He received a communication from the office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, which in turn is based upon a complaint/representation submitted by the villagers of Dharmajigudem. As and when it becomes necessary to institute proceedings under the relevant provisions of law, the prescribed procedure has to be followed. The mere submission of any reply by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent does not lead to any adjudication of rights. As a matter of fact, the 2nd respondent did not indicate that he is going to undertake any adjudication in the matter. Being an officer concerned with the Revenue Department, the steps taken by him cannot be said to be outside his jurisdiction, particularly when the allegation is in relation to a property, which is said to have been donated for the public use. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of upholding the impugned notice but directing that the 2nd respondent shall not by himself determine any rights of the petitioner or other parties. It is also made clear that and in case, necessity arises for adjudication of the matter under any provision, the 2nd respondent shall strictly follow the relevant prescribed procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 26.03.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26300 of 2008 Date: 26.03.2009 JSU