JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent dated 24.12.2018 in proceedings Na.Ka.No. 261/ 2018/ A2 quash the same as the same is arbitrary ultravires and consequentially direct the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry afresh on the basis of the judgment and decrees passed in O.S.No. 430/1965 and A.S.No.176/1967 dated 30.9.1967 and 24.8.1968 respectively before issuance of notice for acquisition of property comprised in S.No. 180/2B to an extent of 2.21 hectares, Poosaripatti Village, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 24.12.2018 passed by the first respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he alone is entitled to receive the compensation, in respect of a portion of the land having total extent of 2.21 hectares in S.No.180/2B situated at Poosaripatti Village, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District. According to the petitioner, there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2, 3 & 4 and a suit O.S.No.430 of 1965 was also filed by the petitioner, which resulted in a Civil Court decree passed in his favour. According to the petitioner, as per the Civil Court decree, he alone is the absolute owner of the property and he alone is entitled to receive the compensation for the lands acquired by the first respondent. But it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice has been sent not only to the petitioner but also to the respondents 2, 3 & 4 who are not entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired lands by the first respondent. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has given a detailed reply to the said show cause notice and the instant writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned show cause notice dated 24.12.2018. 4. Heard Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 24.12.2018. It is settled law that a show cause notice cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 24.12.2018. It is settled law that a show cause notice cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that a Civil Court decree has been passed in his favour and he alone is entitled to receive the compensation for the lands belonging to him acquired by the first respondent. But it is also his case that the show cause notice has been issued on 24.12.2018 to the respondents 2, 3 & 4 who are not entitled to receive the compensation. 6. It is also an admitted fact by the petitioner that detailed objections have already been given to the first respondent on 10.01.2019 stating that he alone is entitled to receive the compensation and therefore, the first respondent ought not to have sent the show cause notice to the respondents 2, 3 & 4 as they are not entitled to receive the compensation. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made, this Court is of the considered view that it is for the first respondent to consider the objections raised by all the persons to whom the impugned show cause notice was sent before passing the final order. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been filed prematurely, even without waiting for the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the first respondent for payment of compensation. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction. But his only case is that the compensation amount should have to be paid only to the petitioner and not to anybody else. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. 8. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has already sent a detailed reply to the first respondent on 10.01.2019, the first respondent is directed to consider all the objections raised by the petitioner in that reply in accordance with law and pass final orders thereafter. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.