Challenging a Show Cause Notice invoking a court's writ jurisdiction is premature and discouraged by the mandate of the law. A Show Cause Notice does not give rise to a cause of action unless there is an adverse action taken in pursuance of it.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing Show Cause Notice dated 18th March 2021 (hereinafter "impugned Notice") issued by the respondent no. 1 and for calling upon the respondent authority to remove the encroachments that it has constructed on the portion of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No. 34/24 (4-16) situated in Village Palam, Delhi.

2. The petitioners purchased the aforesaid land admeasuring 4 bighas 16 biswa, from its recorded owners, Dariyao Singh, Roop Chand and Prahlad Singh, by way 3 registered sale deeds dated 31st October 1996 for 1 bigha 12 biswa each and its possession was taken by the petitioners thereafter. The said land fell upon the recorded owners when their father, Girdhari, died intestate. The said land admeasuring 4 bigha 16 biswa came to be comprised in Khasra No. 34/24, Village Palam, Delhi, by way of exchange between Khatauni B and Khatauni A, and was mutated as such in the name of Girdhari on 23rd June 1962 in pursuance of order of the SDM/RA dated 17th May 1961.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 21st December 1998, mutation of the land in question was done by way of entering the names of the petitioners as owners of the land and on 24th April 2008, a portion of the petitioners' land for approximately 1066 sq. yards was encroached upon by the respondent authority by constructing a road and drain.

4. The petitioner no. 1 sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to ascertain the status of the land in question. The respondent authority replied to the said application under Right to Information Act, 2005 that as per record of DDA, Khasra No. 34/24 (4-16) of Village Palam, New Delhi, has not been acquired so far for DDA, although a requisition for acquisition of this land is pending with Land Acquisition Collector and Land & Building Department of the DDA.

5. The petitioners approached the concerned authority seeking removal of certain alleged encroachment on the part of respondent authority, however, since no action was taken by the respondent authority, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition bearing No. 2230/2015, which was withdrawn by the petitioners with the liberty to file a representation before the respondent authority. Accordingly, the petitioners made a detailed representation to the respondent authority on 25th May 2015 demonstrating their title and ownership over the land and alleged encroachment of a portion thereof by the respondent authority, requesting the respondent authority to remove the encroachment from the land or, in the alternative, to acquire the said encroached portion of the land under the applicable laws for such acquisition and to pay such compensation thereof.

6. Before the respondent authority decided the representation of the petitioners, they approached the Financial Commissioner under Section 72 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, however, the same was also withdrawn.

7. The respondent no. 1 had issued the Notice dated 18th March 2021, wherein it informed the petitioners that the revenue record with respect to the land in question reveals that on 17th May 1961, the SDM/RA had passed an order conferring bhumidari rights in favour of Girdhari on the custodian land without jurisdiction and in contradiction to the provisions of law and which was hence, void ab initio. By the impugned Notice the petitioners were directed to furnish an explanation regarding the same.

8. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned Notice issued by the respondent no. 1.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the respondent authority has encroached upon the portion of the land in question which has been in the possession of the petitioners for more than 60 years and which is also reflected in