1. The main writ petition alongwith CMPs was taken up for final disposal on request of the counsel for the parties. Heard. 2. Considered. Admit. 3. Petitioner claims to be owner in occupation of land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas in Survey No. 124 at village Numai Kulgam. The land is stated to be Bunjar-i-Qadeem on which petitioner has constructed residential house for last three years. The respondent No. 4 an adjacent land owner applied to the revenue authorities, that as the land is Aabi-Awal, the petitioner could not have raised the residential house on the land. Tehsildar marked this application for action to concerned police for demolition of the house without any notice. Petitioner filed the revision petition which was ultimately heard by the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner upheld the direction and dismissed the revision on 26-12-2001. (Annexure-C1). Tehsildar after this decision on 20-10-2000 (Annexure-D) directed the police Zainapora for removal of construction to restrain the party from changing the nature of Aabi land. 4. The above order of Financial Commissioner and direction of Tehsildar dated: 20-10-2000 is impugned in the petition on the ground that there has been non compliance with provision of law as envisaged under Land Revenue Act and the order has been passed at the back of petitioner, who has not been given any opportunity in the matter. This direction is unjust and in violation of provision of law. 5. Respondents on their part have stated that the house has been built in Agriculture land without authorisation of the revenue minister and in contravention of provision of Section 133-A of Land Revenue Act. The Tehsildar taking note of the contravention on the application of private respondents after getting report and feed back from the subordinate agencies, directed the police to dismantle the house and restrain petitioner from changing the land from Agriculture to non-agriculture. The due procedure has been followed. There is nothing illegal in forwarding the application of private respondents to Incharge Police Post Zainapora for removing the construction and preserving the land for agriculture purpose. Tehsildar on 20-10-2000 has restrained petitioner from constructional activities on the land which direction has been again repeated on 26-10-2001 under the impugned order. The due procedure has been followed. There is nothing illegal in forwarding the application of private respondents to Incharge Police Post Zainapora for removing the construction and preserving the land for agriculture purpose. Tehsildar on 20-10-2000 has restrained petitioner from constructional activities on the land which direction has been again repeated on 26-10-2001 under the impugned order. Section 133-A reads as under:- "No land which grows or has been growing within the proceeding two years shali crop, vegetables or saffron bulbs shall be used for any purpose other than agricultural purpose, without permission in writing of the Revenue Minister." Section 133-C(1) reads as under:- "If any person contravenes the provisions of Section 133-A or Section 133-B. the Collector or any other officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of the first class, as he may authorise, may by notice in writing served in the manner hereinafter provided, direct such person to show cause within the time specified in the notice as to why he should not remove the contravention and restore the land or water-surface or water field or floating field, as the case may be, to its original condition by a particular date and if such person fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Collector or such officer, within that time, the collector or such officer may after informing the person of his decision, remove or cause to be removed the contravention and in doing so, may use such force as may be necessary. 6. A combined reading of the provisions makes it obligatory on the part of the prescribed authority that once a contravention of Section 133-A is brought to its notice, the person is to be asked by notice in writing to show cause within specified time as to why he should not remove the contravention and restore the land in its original condition by a specified date. It is only if the person fails to show cause within prescribed time that the contravention may be removed and necessary force may be used again on condition that the concerned person is to be informed of the decision of the authority of removal of the contravention by the authority. 7. It is only if the person fails to show cause within prescribed time that the contravention may be removed and necessary force may be used again on condition that the concerned person is to be informed of the decision of the authority of removal of the contravention by the authority. 7. In this case, it is seen that though the Financial Commissioner heard the revision with the consent of the parties, it has come to the conclusion that the Agriculture land housed the construction for which no permission in writing from revenue minister was obtained and thereby Section 133-A stands contravened. However, instead of directing Tehsildar or prescribed authority to comply with above provisions of law has proceeded to uphold the order of Tehsildar to concerned Police Station to demolish the construction and restore the site as agriculture land. This is obviously in contravention of Section 133-C of the Land Revenue Act. Without giving the otherside an opportunity and without associating the other side with the proceedings which have civil consequence. The order of the Tehsildar cannot be sustained. The contention of learned counsel Mr. M.A. Qayoom, that in fact order dated; 20-10-2000 of Tehsildar is in continuation of his earlier order dated: 22-07-1999 and writ is not competent so long the latter order is not challenged, cannot be accepted in as much as, the question is one of providing opportunity to a party to show cause against intended demolition, whether the intentional demolition is expressed by order dated: 22-07-1999 or order dated: 20-10-2000. The crux of the problem is one of affording opportunity to the otherside. In the view expressed above, the writ petition succeeds to the extent that the prescribed authority shall follow the provision of law including Section 133-A and 133-C (1) of the Land Revenue Act in case the authority intend to initiate process for removal of contravention of the alleged Aabi-Awal agriculture land in question.