ANNANGI VENKATARATHNAM Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule nisi. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue took notice for the respondents. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The writ petition is directed against the show-cause notice issued under Section 7 of Act 3 of 1905. Assailing the impugned action, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the subject land is not a Government land and unless the Mandal Revenue Officer, after due application of mind, forms the opinion that the subject land is the Government land, he cannot have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, and there is nothing in the impugned notice to reflect the application of mind on the part of the Mandal Revenue Officer.

(3.) I should state at the threshold that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine having regard to the binding authorities of the Supreme Court and this Court. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. B.D. Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 947, handed down the opinion that the Court shall not interfere with the statutory notice. A Division Bench of this Court also in Special Officer, ULC v. M. Vijayalakshmi, 1998 (6) ALD 824 = 1998 (6) ALT 627, opined to the same effect. The question whether the subject land is Government land or not is a pure question of fact and may be jurisdictional fact. If it is the case of the petitioner that the subject land is not the Government land, he should appear before the Mandal Revenue Officer and put forth that plea supported by the evidence in his possession. But, from the point of view of the Mandal Revenue Officer, he has made it abundantly clear that the subject land is the Government land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Mandal Revenue Officer inherently lacks jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. If the petitioner ultimately establishes that the subject land is not the Government land and nevertheless the Mandal Revenue Officer passes adverse final order against the petitioner, the Court, at that stage, can intervene, but the Court cannot interdict the proceedings initiated by the Mandal Revenue Officer under the Statute on the assumption that the subject land is not the Government land.