IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11119 of 2005 Between: 1 Gurram Sindhura, W/o. G. Sridhar Reddy, R/o. Mangalpalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 2 Gurram Sridhar Reddy S/o. Naghabhushnam R/o. Mangalpalli Village, Mandal Ibrahimpatnam , Ranga Reddy District, ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction, or issue an appropriate writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:- i) Directing the Respondents herein not to evict the petitioners herein from their agricultural lands i.e, (1) Gurram Sindhura - Land to the extent of Ac 5-3 gts situated in Sy. No.124/31 of Mangalpally Village, Mandal Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District; (2) Gurram Sridhar Reddy - land to the extent of 33 guntas situated in Sy.No. 124/49, of Mangalpalli Village, Mandal Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District; ii) Declare the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.1 herein vide No. B/1549/05, dt. 14-3-2005 directing the petitioners to evict the petitioners from the said agricultural land is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India; iii) and to pass any such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: By the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, the petitioners have been called upon to show cause within the stipulated time as to why the lands specified in the schedule to the notice, assigned in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 be not resumed after summary eviction of the petitioners from the said land. The impugned order is merely a show cause notice. It is not either pleaded or established that the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is patently without jurisdiction. What is alleged is that the impugned action is proposed against the land in possession of the petitioners for a long time. This fact per se does not vitiate the impugned show cause notice on the ground that it is patently without jurisdiction. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no justification for interdicting what is merely a show cause notice. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their explanation to the show cause notice within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioners submitting such an explanation, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioners forthwith on the passing of such an order. Till such an order is passed by the first respondent, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated May 10, 2005. Ycr/Bsc To 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 4. 2 CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 5. 2 C.D. copies.