IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 7803 of 2001 Between: Panasa Ramachandraiah S/o. Yellaiah R/o. Anneparthy Village, Nalgonda(Mandal), Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Nalgonda District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction more in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing Notice No.D/126669/2000, Dt.26.3.2001 asking Panasa Sivamma to appear in person or to submit a Written explanation before him, otherwise the action will be taken to resume the land admeasuring Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.179 of Anneparthy village, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violativeof Article 14, 16 of constitution of India, and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled against the show cause notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nalongda Mandal, the ﬁrst respondent, in proceedings No.D/126669/2000 dated 26.03.2001 alleging contravention of Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The said show cause notice was addressed to the wife of the petitioner herein calling upon her to appear before the ﬁrst respondent with supporting documents or to submit a written explanation within seven days from the date of notice. The petitioner claims that the subject land admeasuring Ac.2.00 situated in Sy. No. 179 of Annaparthi village was purchased from one Gade Peda Lachaiah and others in the name of his wife Smt. Panasa Sivamma. It is claimed that the petitioner and his wife were not aware that the said land was assigned land, the alienation of which was prohibited by the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The petitioner also claims that after coming to know of the said fact, he approached the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Nalgonda Mandal and obtained a separate patta in his own name under Sec. 3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. It appears that while matters stood thus, t he Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Nalgonda Mandal, issued the impugned notice calling upon Smt.Panasa Sivamma to submit an explanation or to appear in person in connection with the alleged violation of Sec. 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner approached this Court stating that his wife had died on 25.10.1995 and hence, the notice issued in the name of a dead person is illegal. The other contentions raised by the petitioner are that the Authorities had issued a separate patta in his favour in the year 2000 and that he was dependant on the said land, having been in possession thereof for the last several years and any action on the part of the authorities to dispossess him from the land would be illegal and unjust. By order dated 23.04.2001 in WP MP No. 9935 of 2001 in W.P. No. 7803 of 2001, this court directed the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession existing as on that date. T h e Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Nalgonda Mandal ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that the subject land was purchased in the name of the petitioner’s wife under Registered document No.3350/1986 dated 1.10.1986 and accordingly, it was not correct on the part of the petitioner to claim that the land was purchased in the year 1962. It is further stated that upon enquiry, it was found that the subject land was not being cultivated and was not in the possession of the original assignee or the purchasers. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted explanation dated 21.4.2001 to the show cause notice but without awaiting the result, he approached this court by way of the present writ petition. It is further contended that the writ petition being ﬁled against a show cause notice is not maintainable. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the opinion that intervention by this court in the matter at the present stage is uncalled for. A Writ Petition would lie against a show cause notice only on limited grounds, such as one of jurisdiction or malafides. No such ground is made out in the present case and it is demonstrated in the counter that the petitioner, having ﬁled an explanation to the show cause notice, rushed to this court without awaiting the result. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the ﬁrst respondent to consider the explanation dated 21.04.2001 submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 26.03.2001 and pass appropriate orders. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within two months. Pending passing of such orders, the respondents shall continue to maintain status quo with regard to the possession as directed by this Court earlier. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar October 22, 2008 MAS