THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26111 of 2010 Date:22.10.2010 Between: C. Jagapathi Rao ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C. Hanumantha Rao Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the show cause notice dated 27.07.2010 issued by respondent No.4 as without jurisdiction. The petitioner also sought for a further declaration that he is entitled to complete the construction of the building as per the plan approved by Huda/HMDA/GHMC over an area of 39,688 sq. yards in survey Nos.57 and 58 of Uppal Kalsa Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without interference from the respondents. By the impugned show cause notice issued under Section 6(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short ‘2006 Act’), respondent No.4 called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why conversion fee along with penalty, which works out to a sum of Rs.3,57,19,200/-, shall not be collected. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that having received the said notice, he has submitted a detailed reply on 01.09.2010. However, having submitted the reply, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with the plea that respondent No.4 inherently lacks jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The main ground on which this issue is raised by the petitioner is that under various proceedings, the land is declared to be falling within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and that the same was declared as excess. It is the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.4 will get jurisdiction only in case where land remained agricultural and therefore, he lacks jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. Mr. C. Hanumantha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the impugned notice deserves to be quashed on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No.4. Having carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the case on hand does not fall in the category of inherent lack of jurisdiction because the question whether respondent No.4 lacks jurisdiction or not depends upon appreciation of the facts of the case. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has no authority to issue notice under the provisions of 2006 Act. The question whether the petitioner’s land is an agricultural land or vacant land under the provisions of various enactments such as the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 or the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 requires to be adjudicated with reference to the facts pleaded by the petitioner. It is only after determination of these facts that the question of jurisdiction of respondent No.4 to take action under the provisions of 2006 Act and the liability of the petitioner to make payment would arise. Having submitted the explanation, I do not find any reason for the petitioner to change his heart and file the writ petition at this stage on the purported ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No.4. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. Respondent No.4 is directed to adjudicate the issue raised in the show-cause notice after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner may be permitted to file further explanation and furnish material in support thereof. This request of the learned counsel for the petitioner accepted and the petitioner is given liberty to file additional explanation along with the material within a period of two weeks. Respondent No.4 shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing appropriate orders. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33344 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd October, 2010 GHN