RADHAKISHAN OZA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner calls in question the show cause notice dated 12.2.1996 (Annexure P-10) issued in Revenue Case No. 2/A-39/90-91 by the Additional Collector, Ujjain, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the land bearing Survey No. 438 situated at village Padliya Kalan, District Ujjain under the provisions of section 182 of the MPLR Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code').

(2.) EARLIER also on two occasions more or less similar notices were issued to the petitioner. The first one issued on 7.2.1983 was quashed by this Court vide order dated 17.5.1994 passed in M.P. 1077/199. The Court observed that conditions precedent for exercising of jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 182 of the Code do not appear to exist from the contents of the notice.

(3.) AT the out-set, it may be observed that the earlier orders passed in M.P. Nos. 1077/92 and 55/94 do not operate as res judicata against the fresh proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner inasmuch as the latter was granted leave to initiate proper proceedings in conformity with law against the petitioner who also had right to contest the same. The first notice (Annexure P-2) was quashed for want of necessary particulars to justify the proposed action. The second order was passed on consent of the parties quashing the subsequent notice in terms of the first order dated 17.5.1994. The notice (Annex. P-10) under challenge in the present petition contains a detailed statement as to how and when the land was given on lease by the erst-while Gwalior State to the petitioner's predecessors in title and as to how breach of the conditions of the lease is committed by the petitioner. The notice merely sets the machinery of law in motion. It has no serious consequences because the petitioner-occupant can contest the opinion formed by the Revenue Authorities in the inquiry which follows service of notice. In my considered opinion the present writ is not only pre-mature but mis-conceived also as against the final order that would be passed after inquiry, an appeal is provided under the Code. The proceedings cannot be termed as without jurisdiction and the question as to the status of the petitioner is yet to be gone into by the Additional Collector and decided after taking evidence of both the parties. It is well settled that the High Court will not ordinarily entertain the writ petition at such preliminary stage of issuance of notice.