THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3004 of 2008 Between: S.Anjad Ahmad and others. .. PETITIONERS and The State of A.P. and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3004 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that they are the sons of one Sri S.Mahamood, who had been assigned the land admeasuring Ac.5-25 cents in Sy.No.516/2 of Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Kadapa District. It is stated that the 1st petitioner was also assigned the land admeasuring Ac.3-50 cents in Sy.No.561/1 of Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Kadapa District. After the death of their father, the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands. While so, the said assigned lands are sought to be resumed for the purpose of allotting the same to the houseless poor persons. Accordingly, a show-cause notice in Ref.No.E/1785/07, dated 10- 01-2008, has been issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that there are several Government lands, which are more suitable for the purpose of providing house-sites to the houseless poor persons and, therefore, there cannot be any justification on the part of the 2nd respondent to resume the said lands, which are being cultivated. It is further stated that as per the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time, cultivable lands shall not be resumed. Admittedly, as the impugned notice is only a show-cause notice, it is for the petitioners to file objections before the 2nd respondent pointing out more suitable lands. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 10-01-2008, they filed explanation on 17-01- 2008. If that be so, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to admit the writ petition, which is filed questioning the impugned notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15-02-2008 Prv