Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the second respondent does not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned proceedings, dated 13.10.2010. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 13.10.2010, is only a show cause notice asking the petitioner to explain as to why the alleged rectification deed should not be considered as a settlement deed and registered as such. 4. From the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit his explanation to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 13.10.2010, raising all the issues available to him, including the issue relating to the lack of jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the impugned notice, dated 13.10.2010. The petitioner shall submit his explanation to the impugned notice of the second respondent, dated 13.10.2010, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.