V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) ONE Shri Gaddam Narayan Reddy of ambaripet Village, Kaddam Mandal, adilabad District was served with a notice dated 29-3-1994 by the Mandal Revenue officer, under Section 7 of the Andhra pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 ( the act for brevity) as to why action should not be taken against him for allegedly encroaching the Government property admeasuring Ac. 8-29 gts. in S. No. 199 of the said Village. Without filing any explanation to the said show-cause notice, Shri Narayan reddy approached the Government by way of filing a general revision petition and requested for stay of eviction. The government were very liberal and by its order dated 19-4-1994, granted stay and advised the Collector to send remarks. After receiving remarks from the Collector, it appears a notice was sent to the said narayan Reddy who, by that time, was no more. ( 2 ) BE that as it may, the Government issued Memo No. 30428/asn. II (3)/94-9, dated 6-12-1999 vacating the interim orders placing reliance on the report of the District collector dated 29-9-1998. Assailing the said memo, the present Writ Petition is filed by Shri G. Rajender Reddy, son of late G. Narayan Reddy. ( 3 ) WHILE issuing notice before admissionin the writ petition, on 29-6-2000, this Court directed status quo to be maintained. On 23-1-2002, when the matter was listed before this Court, it was brought to my notice that the writ petitioner G. Narayan Reddy (sic. G. Rajender Reddy) is also no more. Accordingly WVMP No. 3895 of 2002 was filed by his wife and two daughters including a minor daughter. The application was accordingly ordered and the legal representatives of late G. Rajender Reddy are now prosecuting this case. ( 4 ) IT is well settled that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not ordinarily take up judicial review of a show-cause notice, however grave the prima facie observations in the notice may be. (See State of U. P. v. Shri brahm Datt Sharma ). In Spl. Officer U. L. C. v. M. Vijayalakshmi, a Division Bench of this court was concerned with the validity of a show-cause notice issued by the government of Andhra Pradesh under section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976. (See State of U. P. v. Shri brahm Datt Sharma ). In Spl. Officer U. L. C. v. M. Vijayalakshmi, a Division Bench of this court was concerned with the validity of a show-cause notice issued by the government of Andhra Pradesh under section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976. While holding that a writ Petition seeking judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of show-cause notice is not maintainable, their lordships Honourable the Chief Justice umesh Chandra Banerjee (as his Lordship then was) and Honourable Mr. Justice p. Ramakrishnam Raju held as follows: two principal issues arise for consideration: firstly, the power of the state Government to review the order in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and secondly, the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of interference at a stage of the proceeding when the governmental authority did deem it fit to exercise its statutory power and has issued a show-cause notice in terms therewith. Turning attention on to the second count first, it is rather pertinent to note that scope of judicial reviewability in a situation like the present one is extremely limited and the High Court would be rather slow and loathe to intervene at this stage of proceedings since the authority ought to be given a free hand and a full play in the matter of enquiring into the circumstances which prompted the authority concerned to issue the show-cause notice. It is in this context, the observations of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of I. T. C. Ltd. v. Union of India seem to be rather apposite wherein the learned single Judge observed that ordinarily, a writ Petition is not maintainable against a show-cause notice inasmuch as, when a show-cause notice is issued, the party gets an opportunity to place his case before the authority concerned and there are elaborate proceedings by way of an appeal and/ or revision against such order passed in such proceeding. . . . " ( 5 ) IN this case, the matter arose under A. P. Land Encroachments Act, 1905 ( the act for brevity), as noticed above. . . . " ( 5 ) IN this case, the matter arose under A. P. Land Encroachments Act, 1905 ( the act for brevity), as noticed above. The notice issued to G. Narayana Reddy is one under Section 7 of the Act which requires the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy tahsildar, as the case may be, before taking proceedings under Section 5 or 6 of the Act to issue notice specifying the land occupied by a person to show cause before certain date why action should not be proceeded against the said person under Section 5 or 6 of the Act. Under Section 5 of the Act, it is competent to the revenue officials to direct a person to pay levy of assessment on lands unauthorisedly occupied under Section 3 of the Act. If it is a case falling under Section 6, the revenue official giving show-cause notice under Section 7 is required to pass an order of eviction if the occupation is objectionable. An appeal shall lie to the collector from any decision or order passed by a Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar under section 10 of the Act and to the Board of revenue from any decision or order of a district Collector. Under Section 12-A of the act, the Government may call for any records relating to any decision under section 6 and examine the legality or propriety of such a decision. Under subsection (2) of Section 12-A of the Act, it is competent for the State Government to stay the execution of any such decision, order or proceeding pending exercise of their powers under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the act. ( 6 ) A plain reading of Sections 6,10 and 12-A would clearly show that the power of the Government to entertain a revision "in relation to any decision or order or proceeding taken by the authority" under the provisions of the Act. The proceedings taken by any authority cannot in the context mean a show-cause notice. A proceeding referred to in Section 12-A (1) is only in relation to a decision or order and not otherwise. When there is a decision or order then only the Government can exercise power of revision and also pass orders under sub-section (2) thereof. The proceedings taken by any authority cannot in the context mean a show-cause notice. A proceeding referred to in Section 12-A (1) is only in relation to a decision or order and not otherwise. When there is a decision or order then only the Government can exercise power of revision and also pass orders under sub-section (2) thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 12-A further supports the view that any revision is qua an order or decision which culminates in a proceeding and not otherwise. Therefore, the orders passed by the Government on 19-4-1994 stopping all further proceedings pursuant to show- cause notice dated 29-3-1994 issued to g. Narayana Reddy were ex facie illegal and must be declared void. ( 7 ) BEFORE closing this case, it is necessary to observe that, of late, many of the orders passed by the Government staying the proceedings before the revenue subordinate officials have come before this court. The government passed orders in a routine manner even in cases where the statute provides for an appeal to the aggrieved party against an order. Even in cases where an appeal is not maintainable against a show-cause notice but still the Government appears to have entertained applications for revision of the show-cause notice under section 12-A which is impermissible under law. This aspect of the matter is well settled. ( 8 ) IN the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to approach the Mandal Revenue Officer and file explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. As and when an explanation is filed, the mandal Revenue Officer shall pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within one month after giving opportunity to the petitioners.