APHC010043092022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition Nos: 2984, W.P.No.2984 of 2022 Between: Jasti Uttej and Others The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition Nos: 2984, 2961, 2982, 2987, 2990, 2999, 3001 and 3350 of 2022 Jasti Uttej and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): K JANAKIRAMI REDDY Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 2961, 2982, 2987, 2990, 2999, 3001 and ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP 2 The Court made the following Common Order: Impugning the notices vide Rc.A11/LC/452/2021 dated 14.09.2021 of the Sub-Collector/respondent No.3, the present writ petitions are filed. 02. As the subject matter in all these writ petitions are one and the same, all the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 03. Heard Sri T.Bheemanna, learned counsel representing Sri K.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavits submitted that the respondent authorities i.e., Sub-Collector invoking the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (conversion for Non Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006 issued impugned show cause notice asking why a penalty and fine of 100% in addition to the regular conversion fee cannot be imposed contending that the subject land is being used for non-agricultural purpose without conversion of land from agriculture to non agriculture. Infact the Gunadala is part of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation not a village as alleged 3 by the respondents and the Municipal Corporation is levying tax on the petitioners and they are paying the same for many years. Without looking into all those things, the Sub-Collector has issued impugned notice. If said impugned notice subsists, it affects the rights of the petitioners as such prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned notices. 5. On the other hand, Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that as against mere issuance of show cause notice writ cannot be entertained. The petitioners can as well submit their explanation to the said show cause notices and raise all the grounds that have been raised before this Court. The petitioners have not raised any valid grounds while questioning the show cause notice impugned. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 06. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as a precautionary measure, an explanation was already given to the Sub-Collector. In view of the same, the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot say that the petitioners have not submitted any explanation. 4 07. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 08. The Sub-Collector has issued the impugned notice vide Rc.A11/LC/452/2021 dated 14.09.2021 on the ground that the subject agricultural property has been put to use for non agriculture purpose without obtaining any permission as required under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (conversion for Non Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006. As could be seen from the notice, it would indicate that the petitioners have put the agriculture land to the non agriculture purpose. As such the said show cause notice has been issued to show cause why the penality along with conversion fee as stipulated should not be imposed and accordingly sought explanation. The record also would indicate that the petitioners have submitted explanation on 23.09.2021. It is brought to the notice of this court that in some of the cases this Court has granted stay. Though the writ petitions are of the year 2022, the respondent authorities did not choose to file their counter. There is no material available on record to show that the respondent authorities have passed any orders on the petitioners’ explanations. Ordinarily writ does not lie against mere issuance of show cause notice. Entertaining the writ petition 5 against show cause notice is beyond the limit of writ jurisdiction. The petitioners can as well raise all grounds that have been raised before this court, before the authority concerned. 09 The petitioners have not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Hon’ble Court. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be disposed of by passing the following common order. The respondent authorities concerned are directed to consider and dispose of the explanations submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the notices impugned dated 14.09.2021 in accordance with law, if not already disposed of. Accordingly these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 06th February, 2025 KKV 6 453 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition Nos: 2984, 2961, 2982, 2987, 2990, 2999, 3001 and 3350 of 2022 06.02.2025 KKV 7 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Writ Petition Nos: 2984, 2961, 2982, 2987, 2990, 2999, 3001 and 3350 of 2022 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE . 06.02.2025 RC, J The writ petitions are disposed of. (vide separate common order) ______ RC, J KKV 8