HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.2984 of 2003 Date : 08-12-2010 Between : Pothu Rajeshwar .. Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Nizamabad and 6 Others .. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.2984 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner, an assignee of a Government land, has filed this Writ of Prohibition for prohibiting the Respondents 1 and 2 viz., the Joint Collector and Collector, Nizamabad respectively from further proceeding in pursuance of Notice No.E1/6273/2002, dated 01-01-2003. The petitioner was granted assignment of an extent of Ac.4.12 guntas of land situate in Sy.No.155/2 of Uploor Village, Kamareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District. He has also obtained pattedar passbook and title deeds. He claims that he has been cultivating the said land personally by raising paddy crop every year from the water drawn from Sreeram Sagar Project, Kakatiya Canal Sub-Distributory. He received the impugned notice dated 01-01-2003 directing him to appear before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in connection with a case posted for hearing on 24-01-2003. The petitioner states that he is not aware of anything including the case which is referred to in the said notice nor the said notice would disclose the nature of case taken up for hearing. He, therefore, filed this Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief. Despite service of notice, respondents 3 to 7 have remained ex parte. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating that the impugned notice dated 01-01-2003 does not disclose in what connection he was directed to appear, he would contend that in a suit O.S.No.112 of 2002 instituted by him in the Court of the I Junior Civil Judge, Armoor against the Respondents 3 to 7 seeking relief of injunction, the said Court in I.A.No.343 of 2002, dated 12-11-2002 on a consideration of the documentary evidence, granted temporary injunction restraining the said respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. In an appeal C.M.A.No.24 of 2002 filed by the Respondents, the said order was also confirmed. The counsel would therefore contend that the respondents 1 and 2 cannot conduct any enquiry into the same issue. It is true that the impugned notice does not disclose either the reasons or the nature of case in respect of which the petitioner was directed to appear. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 it is specifically stated that another notice No.E1/6273/2002, dated 09-02-2003 was issued to the petitioner, therein indicating that proceedings were initiated for violation of conditions of assignment by not bringing the land into cultivation and in that connection the hearing was proposed and the matter was later directed to be posted on 21-02-2002. From the said statement, which is not controverted, it is clear that the respondent No.2 is conducting enquiry regarding the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. The suit referred to above, admittedly is for the relief of injunction and the civil Court only can decide about the possession or otherwise of the petitioner and the said Court does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the validity or the violation of the conditions of patta. The said power is vested only in the statutory authorities. It cannot, therefore, be said that the 2nd Respondent lacks jurisdiction to conduct enquiry into the matter. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and submit such material as he deems fit to satisfy the authorities that he has not violated the conditions of patta. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 08th December, 2010 skmr