THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30182 OF 2011 ORDER: The action of the third respondent, in interfering with the petitioner’s possession over land admeasuring Ac.1-40 guntas in Survey No.662/1A2 of Surappakasam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction that the notice issued by the third respondent dated 23.07.2010 be quashed. It is the petitioner’s case that, while the subject land is patta land, the respondents had issued a notice in Form-II dated 23.07.2010; and without considering his objections, and even without passing an order, the respondents were seeking to interfere with his possession. Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would take this Court through several documents, annexed to the Writ Petition, in support of his contention that the petitioner’s land is not Government land, but is patta land. On the other hand, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) would assert that the subject land is Government land. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not decide disputed questions of title. This Court would, ordinarily, not enquire into the merits of the rival claims of title of the property in dispute as these are questions of fact and law which require determination by a competent Civil Court on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. (Sohan Lal v. Union of India[1]; New Satgram Engineering Works v. Union of India[2]; Parvatibai Subhanrao Nalawade (Smt) v. Anwarali Hasanali Makani[3]; Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.),[4]; State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh[5]; Syed Kazim Bahadur Vs. District Collector, Rangareddy District[6]; Lambadi Pedda Bhadru Vs. Mohd. Ali Hussain[7]; Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, ix) New Delhi Vs. S.M. Hussain Rasheed[8]; Prince Shahamat Ali Khan v. Sultan-ul- Uloom Education Society[9]; Raidurg Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Raidurg Vs. Government of A.P[10]). It must also be born in mind that what is under challenge in this Writ Petition is merely a notice in Form-II, issued in accordance with Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 2007. It is always open to the petitioner to file his objections and, in case an adverse order is passed, to avail the remedies available to him in law, including the statutory remedy of an appeal under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Unless this Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice is non-est, a Writ Petition would not be entertained for the mere asking, and as a matter of routine, and the petitioner would, invariably, be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands, highlighted in the Writ Petition, therein. (Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse[11]; Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy[12]; Saravani Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai[13]; M/s Vasavi Business Combines v. Commissioner of Customs[14]; M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Commercial (CT), (Audit), Hyderabad[15]; and Shakti Met Dor Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise[16].) Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) would state that no orders have been passed till date as neither the original assignee nor the petitioner (transferee) have filed their objections to the said notice in Form-II. Sri D.V. Chalapathi Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would, however, assert that the petitioner had submitted his objections, and the assertion of the Learned Government Pleader to the contrary was not correct. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to go into this question, and it would suffice if the petitioner is granted two weeks’ time to submit another copy of the said objections, which he claims to have already filed, again to the Tahsildar who issued the show cause notice. The Tahsildar shall, in case such objections are filed within two weeks from today, consider the said objections, and pass orders in accordance with law thereafter. In case the objections are not filed within the aforementioned period of two weeks, it is open to the Tahsildar to pass orders in accordance with law, without waiting further for a copy of the objections to be submitted to him by the petitioner. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J November 18, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by 22.11.2011. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30182 OF 2011 November 18, 2011 MD [1] 1957 SCR 738 [2] (1980)4 SCC 570 [3] (1992)1 SCC 414 [4] (1992)4 SCC 61 [5] 1993(Suppl)1 SCC 306 [6] (2002)3 ALT 739 [7] (2003)4 ALT 611 [8] (2003)5 ALT 143 [9] (2003)6 ALT 307 [10] (2004)3 ALT 221 [11] (2004) 3 SCC 440 [12] (2007)9 SCC 286 [13] 2010(1) ALD 40 (DB) [14] Judgment of A.P.H.C. D.B in W.P.No.16170 of 2010 dated 28.7.2010 [15] Judgment of A.P.H.C.D.B. in W.P.No.18725 of 2010 dated 27.8.2010 [16] Judgment of A.P.H.C. D.B. in W.P. No.11855 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010