Judgment :- D.Murugesan, J. The land in question is in Survey No.41/3 of Karunguzhipallam Village, Kancheepuram District. For the disposal of the writ appeal, certain factual details are necessary. 2. The land in question together with some other lands originally belonged to one Subbaraya Kottradiar. He executed a mortgage deed in favour of one Cunniah on 4-5-1926. The said Cunniah assigned the mortgage right in favour of one Anandalwar by a deed of assignment dated 13-8-1927. Further the said Anandalwar assigned the said lands in favour of one Sirur by a deed of assignment dated 21-5-1928. The High Court adjudicated Subaraya Kottradiar as insolvent by order dated 5-4-1927. The Official Assignee, therefore, conveyed the lands in favour of Sirur by a deed of sale dated 31-8-1929. Since the said Sirur failed to pay the tax due to the Government, the property was sold in revenue auction on 30-10-1933. One Kunnappa Naicker purchased the said land. He was issued with the patta bearing No.61. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the land. Out of the total extent of the land, by a sale deed dated 25-6-1936, an extent of 121 acres was purchased by one Muthukrishna Naidu. 3. The said Muthukrishna Naidu executed a will bequeathing the properties in favour of the appellants, viz., his daughter and grand daughter respectively. Muthukrishna Naidu died on 23-11-1991 leaving behind the appellants as his heirs. Since both the appellants did not apply for patta, the land was subdivided and classified as "Anadeenam" and Government Poramboke. On coming to know the above classification, both the appellants applied to the Commissioner for Land Administration to cancel the classification as "Anadeenam" and that further request to reclassify the land as private patta land and also for issuance of patta in their names. The said request was forwarded to the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, who, in turn, directed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, to enquire into the matter and submit a report. The report dated 15-03-2001 was also submitted by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The Commissioner for Land Administration, by his proceedings dated 13-06-2001, after considering the report of the Assistant Settlement Officer, directed the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, to take necessary action on the application of the appellants on the basis of the documents and their enjoyment and also the documents relating to the UDR, though the said property is classified as "Anadeenam". Pursuant to the said order, the District Revenue Officer, by his proceedings dated 25-4-2002, directed reclassification of land as 'private patta land'. With the said conclusion, he directed the Tahsildar, Chenglepet, to carry out necessary changes in the Village and Taluk accounts. 4. Since the Tahsildar did not comply with the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 25-4-2002, the appellants, after issuing letters of request and in fact, lawyer's notice, filed W.P.36025 of 2002 for a direction to the Tahsildar to issue patta. This Court, by an order dated 19-9-2002, while admitting the writ petition, directed that the Commissioner of Land Administration was at liberty to review his order dated 13-06-2001 and pass appropriate orders in the matter after hearing the parties if so required. This order of the learned Single Judge was questioned by the appellants in W.A.No.3080 of 2002. The Division Bench allowed writ appeal by an order dated 29-10-2002. An argument was advanced placing reliance on the order of the Division Bench and for better appreciation, we extract the said order:- "This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19-9-2002 in W.P.No.36025 of 2002, while admitting the writ petition. In the writ petition, the complaint is that the order dated 13-06-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration holding the appellant as the pattadar has not been implemented and the writ prayer is for a direction to implement the said order. But the learned Single Judge has directed the first respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Land Administration to review his order dated 13-06-2001. 2. We have heard both the learned Counsel for the appellants as also the learned Government Pleader. We are of the considered view that the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of the order dated 13-06-2001 and the only scope of the writ petition is whether it is to be ordered or dismissed, but, in no way, the question of review of the order dated 13-06-2001 passed by the first respondent arises for consideration. 3. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the first respondent to review his order, dated 13-06-2001 is set aside. The writ petition will be posted in the usual course before the learned Single Judge hearing the subject. In the meanwhile, the respondents are liberty to file counter. 4. 3. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the first respondent to review his order, dated 13-06-2001 is set aside. The writ petition will be posted in the usual course before the learned Single Judge hearing the subject. In the meanwhile, the respondents are liberty to file counter. 4. Hence, the writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed." Pursuant to the above direction, the writ petition itself was heard and disposed on 28-11-2002 by directing the Tahsildar, Kancheepuram District, to implement the order of the District Revenue Officer within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the copy of the order. Since the said direction was also not complied with, the appellants filed a contempt petition. However, the said contempt petition was later withdrawn. 5. While the matter stood at that stage, the first respondent, the Commissioner of Land Administration, issued the impugned show cause notice dated 24-01-2003 calling for explanation from the appellants as to why the patta granted in favour of them should not be cancelled. It appears that the said show cause notice was issued in exercise of the power under the Revenue Standing Order 31.8.(A) for the following reasons:- (a)According to the land revenue records, for the year 1911, the said S.No.41 after being classified as "Kazhuveli Promboke", in the UDR Scheme held in 1987, it is subdivided as S.No.41/3 and classified as "Punjai Anadeenam". It continues to be so, till the order was passed in the year 2002 granting patta. (b)According to Survey, it remained as "Punjai Anadeenam". (c)As the said land was classified as "Kazhuveli Poromboke " in 1987 and as it was never a patta land, the claim of the petitioners for patta, on the ground that it belonged to their ancestors is wrong. (d)The District Revenue Officer has ordered to issue patta against rules. From the reading of the show cause notice, it is seen that the same has been issued on the basis of the report of the District Collector, Kancheepuram, made in his letter No.H1/40410/02 dated 5-1-2003. 6. The said show cause notice was questioned by the appellants in W.P.No.4027 of 2003. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 24-4-2003. From the reading of the show cause notice, it is seen that the same has been issued on the basis of the report of the District Collector, Kancheepuram, made in his letter No.H1/40410/02 dated 5-1-2003. 6. The said show cause notice was questioned by the appellants in W.P.No.4027 of 2003. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 24-4-2003. The learned Judge did not agree with the contention of the appellants that the Commissioner of Land Administration had already concluded the issue as to the classification, while he passed the order on 13-6-2001 and therefore found that the question of lack of power of suo moto revision did not arise. The learned Judge factually found that there was no such finality as to the issue at the side of the Commissioner of Land Administration. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge found that the Commissioner of Land Administration was empowered to review the order of the District Revenue Officer in reclassifying the land as private patta land and directing the Tahsildar, Chenglepet to grant patta. The learned Judge was also of the view that the writ petition has been filed questioning the show cause notice on merits and the petitioners can of raise the same question before the Commissioner by way of reply as well as during enquiry. This order is challenged in this writ appeal. 7. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the Commissioner of Land Administration has no suo moto power of review under the Revenue Standing Order. To support his contention, he relied upon the Revenue Standing Order 31.8. 8. The said Revenue Standing Order relates to the power of the District Collector or the Divisional Officer to revise the orders made by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar concerned. That Standing Order does not relate to the power of the Commissioner of Land Administration in reviewing the orders of the District Revenue Officer. The relevant Revenue Standing Order is 31.8.(A), which reads as follows:- "Against the orders of the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, the affected person may file an appeal to the Divisional Officer and a revision to the District Revenue Officer against the orders of the Divisional Officer. The appeal/revision should be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The appeal/revision should be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. A further revision to the Commissioner of Land Administration can be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and the orders of the C.L.A. are final. The Commissioner of Land Administration may, however, exercising the general powers of the suo-motu revision, call for the records of the District, Divisional and Taluk when representations are made to him about the precedural, material and legal irregularities in the order passed by the sub-ordinates, examine the case and decide." 9. From the above Revenue Standing Order, it is seen that the Commissioner of Land Administration has the general power of suo moto revision to call for the records of the District, Divisional and Taluk, when representations are made to him about the procedural, material and legal irregularities in the order passed by the subordinates, examine the case and decide. The show cause notice in question was issued on the basis of the report of the District Collector, Kancheepuram. When the report of the Head of the District Administration is received as to the manner in which the order of the District Revenue Officer was made in respect of the classification of "dry Anadeenam" land, as "private patta land" with further direction to transfer the patta, there is absolutely no want of power on the Commissioner of Land Administration, while he exercised the suo moto power under Revenue Standing Order 31.8.(A). The report has given the right to the cause for the Commissioner of Land Administration to invoke the Revenue Standing Order 31.8.(A). Hence, we neither find any force nor any merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Commissioner of Land Administration has no suo moto power to review the order of District Revenue Officer. 10. The learned Senior Counsel would secondly contend that in case, the land was classified as "Anadeenam" even according to the respondent, the said land cannot be construed as the land vests with the Government, entitling the Commissioner of Land Administration to invoke the power of the Revenue. Hence, even when there is a power vested with the Commissioner of Land Administration, on the facts of this case, such power cannot be exercised. Hence, even when there is a power vested with the Commissioner of Land Administration, on the facts of this case, such power cannot be exercised. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the lands were not at the disposal of the Government. Therefore, the question of reconsidering the reclassification is impermissible. He would rely upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in DHULIPALLA RAMAYYA AND ANOTHER -vs- KOTA BRAHMAYYA AND OTHERS (AIR 1958 ANDHRA PRADESH 100). Even in the said case, the learned Judge has held that the expression "Anadeenam" does not imply that it is domain or home-farm land of the landholder and therefore private land. According to the learned Judge, an "Anadeenam" land merely means unoccupied land. This judgment, in our view, may not advance the case of the appellants to contend that the respondent has no power under Revenue Standing Order 31.8.(A). 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would also rely upon yet another judgment of the Single Judge of this Court reported in MARIABACKIAMMAL (DECEASED) -vs- THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER (1990-2 L.W. 478) to contend that no extinguishment of the rights of a ryotwari with the notification of the Estate under Act 26 of 1948. 12. We are conscious of the fact that we are not deciding the issue as to whether the land in question is "Anadeenam" land or a private patta land or a land at the disposal of the Government, as the same will not fall under our purview. We are concerned about the validity of the impugned show cause notice calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why the classification patta granted in faovur of them on the basis of reclassification made by the District Revenue Officer in his proceedings dated 25-4-2002 should not be cancelled. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the nature or the status as to the lands as it is a matter to be left for adjudication by the appropriate forum. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to consider the contention that in case of "Anadeenam" land, the Commissioner of Land Administration cannot exercise the suo moto power. Such an argument is also available to the appellants before the Commissioner of Land Administration. 13. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to consider the contention that in case of "Anadeenam" land, the Commissioner of Land Administration cannot exercise the suo moto power. Such an argument is also available to the appellants before the Commissioner of Land Administration. 13. The learned Senior Counsel would lastly contend that in any case when once this Court has issued a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Chenglepet, to issue patta by implementing the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 25-2-2002, the respondent cannot be allowed to review the order. He would also submit that the order passed in the petition directing the Tahsildar, Chenglepet, to issue patta by implementing the order of the District Collect had become final and the same was not questioned by the respondent by preferring any appeal. To support the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.V.NACHANE AND ANOTHER -vs- UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1126) more particularly, paragraph-12 of the Judgment and would submit that the orders of the cannot be subverted by the subsequent administrative orders and if such administrative authorities are allowed to receive the orders, that would amount to nullify the orders of the Court. 14. We find the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel is total misconception. As we have already pointed out that the appellants approached this Court for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to implement the order of the District Revenue Officer and at no stretch of imagination it could be construed that this Court had satisfied with the title of the property vest with the appellant or the status of the property before issuing such order. All that this Court considered was to give a direction the Tahsildar, Chengelpet and this direction is only in respect of the implementation of the order of the District Revenue Officer. Merely because the appellants have secured a direction from this Court on the given facts and circumstances of the case, that would not disentitle the the Authority entitled to revise the said order to reconsider the issue in respect of reclassification of the said land. Merely because the appellants have secured a direction from this Court on the given facts and circumstances of the case, that would not disentitle the the Authority entitled to revise the said order to reconsider the issue in respect of reclassification of the said land. If the proposition advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is accepted, the order, which could not be sustained in the eye of law, cannot be allowed to stand merely because the appellants have secured a direction from this court for implementation of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer. In this context, it must be pointed out that even when the W.A.No.3080 of 2002 was allowed, the First Bench had only observed that no way the question of review of order of District Revenue Officer arises for consideration. In that view of the matter, we do not find any assistance from the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel reported in A.V.NACHANE AND ANOTHER -vs- UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1126) referred supra. 15. Lastly we find that what is questioned in the writ petition is only a show cause notice calling for explanation. It is well settled that this Court will not interfere at the show cause notice unless the same is questioned for want of jurisdiction. As we have held that the Commissioner for Land Administration has jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice, in the circumstances, the only course open to the appellants is to answer the show cause notice and get the dispute adjudicated. 16. For the above reasons, we find that the writ appeal is premature and no decision can be rendered by this Court as to the nature of the land in question by appreciating the rival contentions by deciding disputed questions. The appellants shall only respond to the impugned show cause notice by submitting explanation. In fine, we find no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.