THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.958 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in directing the second respondent to cancel the patta granted to the vendor of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claimed to have purchased plot No.2 in survey No.432/11 of Kaikalur Village and Mandal, Krishna District, under a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1995 from one Uppuluri Subhas Chandra Bose, who was assigned land by the Government on 06.08.1983. After obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, Kaikalur, for construction of shops in the land, the petitioner completed the construction. He also applied for grant of Government land to an extent of 60 sq. yards, which lies on the frontage of his property and the third respondent granted the same, vide proceedings dated 16.10.1999, marking a copy to the first respondent. However, under the influence of the local politicians, the first respondent directed the second respondent to evict the petitioner from his property, vide letter dated 07.01.2003. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition. At paragraph 6, it is stated that the when the land granted to any beneficiary was not utilized, it will be reassigned to the eligible person after cancelling the earlier patta for violation of conditions of assignment. It is further stated that any action for cancellation of assignment/eviction would be after issuance of notices and giving opportunity to the parties concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, being the revisionary authority cannot, straight away, give such a direction for eviction and therefore, the impugned action cannot be sustained in law. The learned Government Pleader for Assignments submitted that the impugned action of the first respondent, in particular the letter dated 07.01.2003 is the internal correspondence between the first respondent and his subordinates basing on a complaint, to take necessary action. He assured that the respondents will definitely give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case in case his land is required for any public purpose and therefore, as on today there is no cause of action for the petitioner to file the writ petition and stall the further proceedings. A perusal of the letter dated 07.01.2003 shows that the first respondent has given a direction to the third respondent to take necessary steps for eviction of encroachment in R.S.No.432/11 to an extent of Ac.0.0 ¾ cents in Kaikaluru town and report compliance. It was only a direction to take necessary steps on a complaint and the order dated 26.02.2001 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1382 of 1997, in accordance with law. In view of the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Assignments, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to file this writ petition. Moreover, it was stated in the counter-affidavit as well as assured by the learned Government Pleader for Assignments that any action for cancellation of assignment/eviction would be done after issuing notices and giving opportunity to the parties concerned, in accordance with law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law in case they proceed for cancellation/eviction in respect of the land in question. No costs. _______________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 12th August, 2010 GHN