HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30673 of 2010 Date : 7-12-2010 Between : K.Ramakrishnam Naidu and others .. Petitioners and The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri T.Janardhana Rao Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents not to assign lands admeasuring Ac.3-22 cents in Sy.No.236/1, Ac.3-21 cents in Sy.No.236/5 and Ac.3-21 cents in Sy.No.236/4 of Mamidigunta village, Chittoor District, without passing final orders on the explanations of the petitioners dated 22-11-2010. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners were stated to have been assigned the above mentioned lands in the year 1987-88 and that they are in possession of the same. When certain villagers sought to interfere with the petitioners’ possession, they have filed O.S.No.114/2010 in the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi for permanent injunction and obtained an order of status quo on 8-6-2010. While so, show cause notices were issued by respondent No.2 on 12-10-2010 wherein an allegation was made that the petitioners are not residents of Mamidigunta village and that the assignment is therefore liable to be cancelled. The petitioners are stated to have submitted their explanations on 22-11-2010. The purported cause for the petitioners to file the present Writ Petition is their apprehension that pending consideration of their explanations and passing of final orders, respondent No.2 may assign the lands to third parties. In my opinion, the petitioners failed to show any basis for their above stated apprehension. Ordinarily, when a show cause notice was issued and explanation was furnished by the persons concerned, it is reasonable to presume that the authority which issued the show cause notice will not precipitate further action unless an order is passed on the show cause notice. As noted above, the petitioners have not substantiated their averment that respondent No.2 is intending to grant pattas even before passing final orders, by producing material in support thereof. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be treated as being based on mere apprehension without basis. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to observe that respondent No.2 will not grant assignments to third parties unless the assignments granted in favour of the petitioners are cancelled in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.39040/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 7-12-2010 AM