THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 24933 OF 2011 Date of Judgment: 6.9.2011 Between: Neelam Dayanand …Petitioner and The District Collector, Hyderabad district and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 24933 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The writ petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 20.8.2011 issued by the Tahasildar, Mydukur Mandal, Kadapa district in Ref. A/413/2011 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Transfers) Rules, 2007. The petitioner challenges the said notice on the ground that the land in question is a patta land and not an assigned land and questioning the jurisdiction of Tahasildar, the present writ petition is filed, though the petitioner has filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in Dasari Narayana Rao and another Vs. Deputy Collecltor and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, RR District and others [1] to contend that a similar eviction notice was declared contrary to law by this Court and as such there is no impediment for entertaining the writ petition. I have perused the said decision and from the facts therein, as recorded in paras 2 and 3 thereof, it is clear that the said writ petition was not directed against the show cause notice, but was against the final order which was confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities. That decision, therefore, does not assist the petitioner in maintaining this writ petition. It is also clear and apparent that the respondents authorities have, on a prima facie satisfaction of violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, given the said show cause notice which is within their jurisdiction and it is for the petitioner to appropriately satisfy the respondents by his reply that the land in question is not an assigned land and that no proceedings against him are warranted. Further the said statutory exercise undertaken by the respondent No.3 cannot be interdicted as that action is within jurisdiction and in accordance with law. The writ petition is, therefore, misconceived. However, the respondent No.3 shall consider the reply filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 6.9.2011 KR [1] 2010 (4) ALT 655