Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) Challenging the orders dated 24.2.2010 and 11.3.2010, the present writ petition has been filed. By the order dated 24th of February 2010, the Collector being satisfied with the report of Tehsildar ordered that case be registered and proceeding for cancellation of lease deed be initiated. The file was transferred to Chief Revenue Officer. In pursuance thereof show cause notices have been issued.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on earlier occasion also, similar kind of proceedings were initiated but were dropped. The further submission is that the District Magistrate has recorded prima facie satisfaction in respect of other persons but not in respect of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1994 RD 92: Smt. Bhoodevi and others v. Board of Revenue and others ( paragraphs 9, 12 and 16 in particular). For the sake of convenience these paragraphs are reproduced below:- "9. The question that requires to be considered, is whether a decision taken suo-moto or on the application of an aggrieved party to start proceeding for cancellation of allotment either under Section 198 (4) or under Section 122-C (6) read with Rule 115-P is tantamount to any suit or proceeding decided within the meaning of Section 333 of the Act so as to make it amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Sections 333 or 333-A of the Act. In my opinion, mere decision to commence the proceeding for cancellation and issuance of show cause notices pursuant to said decision, is not tantamount "to any suit or proceeding decided". It is in the nature of an administrative decision not amounting to a decision affecting any of the rights of the allottees and cannot be termed as judicial decision, which alone in my opinion, is revisable under Sections 333 and 333-A of the Act. The decision to commence enquiry under Section 122-C (6) of the Act read with Rule 115-P (1) of the Rules or under Section 198 (4) of the Act, with a view to ultimately deciding the question as to the legality or otherwise of any allotment is not revisable under Sections 333 or 333-A of the Act. In other words, the question whether the material i.e. the report of the Tehsildar (in case the proceeding for cancellation is initiated suo moto) or the application moved by an aggrieved party discloses any justiciable cause for issuing notice to the concerned allottee with a view to affording him an opportunity to have his say and participate in the proceeding initiated by the Collector for adjudication on the question as to whether the allotment suffers from any infirmity or irregularity warranting its cancellation, no doubt involves a decision but such a decision is not tantamount to a decision of a suit or proceeding within the meaning of Section 333 of the Act. The decision is taken by the Collector on subjective satisfaction that the report of the Tahsildar or the application filed by an aggrieved person reveals a triable and justiciable issue. It is the final decision either cancelling the allotment or upholding the same taken under sub-section (6) of Section 122-C or under Rule 115-P (4) of the Rules or the one under Section 198 (4) of the Act which is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Board in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 333 or 333-A of the Act." "12. Now coming to the third question as to whether the show cause notice must indicate, for its sustenance, the ground or grounds on which the allotment is sought to be cancelled suo moto by the Collector under Section 198 (4) of the Act or under Section 122-C (6) of the Act read with Rule 115-P (4) of the Rules, I am of the firm view that failure to disclose ground or grounds in the show cause notice, is bound to tell upon the allottee's right to an effective opportunity being given in the matter of cancellation of an allotment and therefore, in my opinion, a show cause notice issued by the Collector either under sub-section (4) of Section 198 or under sub-section (6) of Section 122-C read with Rule 115-P of the Rules, must contain ground or grounds on which the cancellation of allotment is proposed by the Collector. A notice containing no ground or grounds for cancellation could not be a valid notice in that it would not give an effective opportunity to the allottee to give an effective reply to the show cause notice and defend his case on merits." "16. In the instant case, the impugned notices, in my opinion, do not contain substance of the report submitted by the Tahsildar on the basis of which the suo-moto action for cancellation of allotment has been initiated by the Collector, nor do they indicate ground or grounds on which the allotments are proposed to be cancelled. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to quash the notices, for in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the Collector is directed to give supplementary notices to the petitioners indicating therein the substance of the report submitted by the Collector on the basis of which the show cause notices were issued as also the ground or grounds on which the Collector proposed to cancel the allotment. It would suffice to observe that the Collector shall not proceed with the enquiry before supplying to the allottees the substance of the report received by him from the Tahsildar and the ground or grounds on which the allotments are proposed to be cancelled."
(3.) In the above case it was held that the order ordering registration of case is not justiciable. The Court is of the view that at this stage rights of the parties having not yet been decided, petitioners' right has not been affected at all.;