JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. I have heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Section Rupachandra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. It may be mentioned here that at the time of issuing notice of motion, the question of maintainability of this petition was kept open for argument, learned Counsels for the parties have agreed to make their respective submissions today on the issue of maintainability of this petition. Therefore, before passing any order on the question of stay of the proceedings pending before the District Collector I A, Tamenglong, the issue of maintainability of the petition is taken up for hearing and disposal today. 3. The facts leading to filing of this petition may be summarised as follows: An award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter refers to as the 'Act') was issued on 28.11.08 for acquisition of 208.139 Acres of land to gather with all standing properties thereon situated in Makhuam (Marangching) village. In terms of the said award, an amount of Rs. 2,19,52,570/- was released as part payment of the compensation for the land and standing property of the concerned owners. The Petitioners on behalf owners of the land and other property of Makhuam (Marangching) village in the capacity of group of authorised people including Chairman of the Village Authority received the aforesaid amount. The amount of compensation was received by the petitioners, 2 to 4, as authorised group of the land and property owners, to distribute it amongst the land and property owners subsequently. The land and property owners vide their petition dated 24.8.09 and 09.09.09 made a complaint that after receipt of the aforesaid amount the Petitioners did not distribute the compensation amount to the affected land and property owners, rather held/kept the money so received, with them. 4. In the meantime, being aggrieved, the land and property owners, i.e. the Respondents herein, approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 538 of 2009 seeking redressal of their grievances. This Court, on 22.9.09, upon consideration of the prayer made in the aforesaid writ petition, passed an order dated 22.9.09 directing the Collector, L.A. Tamenglong District to dispose of the representation submitted by the land and property owners within 30 days. This Court, on 22.9.09, upon consideration of the prayer made in the aforesaid writ petition, passed an order dated 22.9.09 directing the Collector, L.A. Tamenglong District to dispose of the representation submitted by the land and property owners within 30 days. The order passed in W.P. (C) No. 538 of 2009 on 22.9.09 reads as follows: The only grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ petition is that they have filed representations dated 24.8.2009 and 9.9.2009. However, the Respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of Land, Tamenglong District, Manipur, has not considered and disposed of the said representations. On the limited prayer of the Petitioners I have also heard Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned Sr. G.A. appearing for the State Respondents. Considering the specific and limited prayer of the Petitioners made in this writ petition, I propose to dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of Land, Tamenglong District, Manipur, to dispose of the said representations submitted by the Petitioners within 30 (thirty) days from the date of opening of this Office after the ensuing Pooja Vacation commencing from 25.9.2009. With the above direction this writ petition stands disposed of. 5. The District Collector, Tamenglong District, acting upon the direction aforesaid so issued by the writ Court, summoned the Petitioners to appear on 23.10.2009 with full facts and figures regarding the amount received by the petitioners. However, as against the aforesaid order, the Petitioners preferred another writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 603 of 2009 before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the direction so issued by the District Collector, Tamenglong District. This Court vide order dated 22.9.2009 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The order of dismissal passed by this Court in W. P. (C) No. 603 of 2009 reads as follows: Heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H. Raghumani, learned G. A. appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Miss Emly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. This matter relates to release of sum of Rs. 2,14,00,000/- (Rupees two crores fourteen lakhs) by way of compensation in connection with a land acquisition proceedings and the said amount was received by the Petitioner and three others, sometime in the last part of 2008. 3, 4, 5 and 6. This matter relates to release of sum of Rs. 2,14,00,000/- (Rupees two crores fourteen lakhs) by way of compensation in connection with a land acquisition proceedings and the said amount was received by the Petitioner and three others, sometime in the last part of 2008. It is not in dispute that while receiving the aforesaid amount the Petitioner is said to have acted as the Chairman of the concerned village authority. However, interestingly, nowhere it is stated in the petition, that the Petitioner is entitled to receive the money by virtue of his being the land owner to the exclusion of any person including Respondent No. 3 to 6. In such situation, it is not discernible in what actual capacity, the Petitioner has received the money from the land acquisition authority. On merit, it is settled position of law that the notice is not challengeable in a writ proceeding unless the notice itself suffers from serious arbitrariness or in complete violation of law as already decided by the Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 943 . Thus, the challenge to the impugned notice dated 5.10.2009 is not entertainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not entertainable. However, despite dismissal of the writ petition, it is made clear that the Petitioner shall be at liberty to submit show cause statement to the impugned notice dated 5.10.2009 by placing the relevant facts before the Deputy Commissioner within the time stipulated in the notice. 6. As against the aforesaid order, a writ appeal was preferred by the petitioners, which was also dismissed in lemine by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, impugned notice dated 18.11.09 has been issued by the District Collector, Tamenglong District requesting the Petitioners to appear before him with all the facts and figures to enable him to dispose of the representation submitted by the Petitioners (respondent herein) of Writ Petition No. 538 of 2009. The Petitioners herein have impugned the notice aforesaid issued by the District Collector Land Acquisition, Tamenglong District and have prayed for quashing the notice dated 18.11.09 aforesaid in Land Acquisition Proceeding bearing No. DC (TML)11/370(RLY)08(Pt.2). 7. Very surprisingly the Petitioners have not arrayed the District Collector, L.A. Tamenglong District as party Respondent, even in spite of impugning the notice dated 18.11.09 issued by him. 8. 7. Very surprisingly the Petitioners have not arrayed the District Collector, L.A. Tamenglong District as party Respondent, even in spite of impugning the notice dated 18.11.09 issued by him. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, further, submitted that the impugned notice issued by the District Collector L.A., being under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, on careful perusal of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, it appears that the representation submitted by the Respondents before the District Collector, Tamenglong which was directed to be disposed of by this Court in its order dated 22.09.2009 in W.P. (C) No. 538/09, cannot be interpreted to be an application praying for reference of the award for adjudication by a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The representation submitted by the Respondents relates to non-receipt of the awarded amount. The Respondents have neither disputed nor have prayed for referring the matter to a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for adjudication of their claim. Therefore, the submission made by the Petitioners to presume the representation submitted by the Respondents to be an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act cannot be accepted at this stage. Undoubtedly, as per provision of Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 any person interested, who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the principal Civil Court, Whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. So far the District Collector, L.A. Tamenglong, has not taken decision in either way, neither the Petitioner has so far prayed for a reference. 9. Mr. Rupachandra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents - 1, 2, 3 and 4 submitted that the notice issued by the Dy. Commissioner' is not a final order and it is only a direction with some observation to appear and submit necessary papers and documents to enable him to dispose of the representation of the Respondents. Mr. 9. Mr. Rupachandra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents - 1, 2, 3 and 4 submitted that the notice issued by the Dy. Commissioner' is not a final order and it is only a direction with some observation to appear and submit necessary papers and documents to enable him to dispose of the representation of the Respondents. Mr. Rupachandra, further, pointed out that same notice has been the subject matter in both the writ petition and the writ appeal preferred by the Petitioners and as such submitted that this petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution is mere abuse of process of the Court. In support of his contention, learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioners have assailed the appellate order of the Division Bench passed in W.A. No. 70 of 2009 by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, further, submitted that the notice issued by the District Collector, L.A. Tamenglong is an administrative order, which has been issued in discharge of his executive function and not as Tribunal or judicial authority or quasi-judicial authority. Therefore, impugned notice issued by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be deemed to be direction of a Court or Tribunal and thus an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not apply to redress the grievances of the Petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied on the decision reported in AIR 1965 Cal 638 in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kalicharan Mudi wherein it has been held that the award merely becomes a final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and a person whose land is acquired, but it would not become a decree. The operative part of the decision reads as follows: (2) It was suggested that the award of the Collector is executable as a decree. We have not been able to get any provision in the Land Acquisition Act to that effect. That certainly applies to an award passed by the District Judge on reference; but there is no provision that the award made by the Collector would have the effect of a decree. We have not been able to get any provision in the Land Acquisition Act to that effect. That certainly applies to an award passed by the District Judge on reference; but there is no provision that the award made by the Collector would have the effect of a decree. On the other hand, Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act makes it clear that the award should be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested regarding the true area, the value of the land the apportionment of compensation. That award is not stated to become a decree but it merely becomes final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and a person whose land is acquired regarding the three matters referred to therein. The application under Article 227 is not maintainable. 10. Mr. P. Tomcha, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in reply to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, has contended that order of the District Collector, L.A. Tamenglong Dist. refusing to make a reference to the Court of District Judge under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act is manifestly opposed to law resulting in great injustice to the party and accordingly such orders being passed in the capacity of a Tribunal would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision reported in AIR (1939) Ori 98 : Samanta Radha Prasanna Das v. The Province of Orissa : wherein it has been held as under: 2. It is fairly well settled now that an order passed by the Collector, while acting under the Land Acquisition Act is not an order of a Court subordinate to this Court and that his order is not open to revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. The Petitioner has, therefore applied under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari so that the mistake committed by the Collector may be rectified. As against this, however, the learned Advocate General has pointed out that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has got the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction and that the Collector, exercising his powers under the Land Acquisition Act, is a tribunal over whom this Court has got the power of superintendence. The order of the Collector being manifestly opposed to law has resulted in great injustice to the Petitioner and it is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to rectify the mistake and afford relief to the Petitioner. 11. However, in the aforesaid decision Samanta Radha Prasanna Das v. The Province of Orissa (supra) the District Collector refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 18(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the present case however, the District Collector. Tamenglong only issued a notice in order to dispose of the representation submitted by the Respondents alleging non receipt of the compensation awarded in the Land Acquisition Proceeding. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be equated to be refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, further, submitted that the action taken by the District Collector, Tamenglong, LA being carried out pursuant to the direction issued by the Court in W.P. (C) No. 538 of 2009, in terms of the definition of the 'Tribunal' as provided in the "Gauhati High Court Superintendence of Tribunal Rules, 1992", the impugned notice issued by the District Collector, Tamenglong shall have to be treated to be an order passed by a Tribunal, over which this High Court will have power of superintendence. The definition of the Tribunal as reflected in "the Gauhati High Court Superintendence of Tribunal, 1992", reads as under: (iii) "Tribunal" means Tribunals in the North Eastern States which are included in the schedule attached hereto and all other Tribunals over which the High Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, irrespective of their nomenclature, which may from time to time be included in the Schedule. However, the above definition of the 'Tribunal', cannot be stretched to include the office of the District Collector, L.A., Tamenglong, within the purview of the definition, in order to bring the impugned notice within the ambit of an order passed by a Tribunal. 12. However, the above definition of the 'Tribunal', cannot be stretched to include the office of the District Collector, L.A., Tamenglong, within the purview of the definition, in order to bring the impugned notice within the ambit of an order passed by a Tribunal. 12. In any view of the matter Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep Tribunals and Courts within the bounds of their authority. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, orders of both Civil 2nd Criminal Courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised every now and then to correct any small mistake of fact and of law. In the instant case, the District Collector, L.A. Tamenglong, has issued a notice and no substantive order has so far been passed. When a District Collector, LA issues a notice, calling upon the Petitioners to reply against the allegations of misappropriation of the award, ordinarily the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. 'The purpose of issuing a notice is to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, and once cause is shown it is open to the District Collector, LA to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Petitioners and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice. 13. Therefore, apparently there is no violation and/or abuse of the process of the Court warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition filed by the Petitioners under Article 227of the Constitution is considered to be not maintainable at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, before parting with the record, it is made clear that the Petitioners will be at liberty to submit appropriate reply to the impugned notice and co-operate with the Respondent authority to enable him to dispose of the representations submitted by the Respondents. Petition dismissed