IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.27789 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Sridevi, W/o. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Piler, Chittoor Dsitrict. 2 Smt. P.Madhavi, W/o. Mallikarjun Reddy, Piler, Chittoor Dsitrict. 3 Smt. D.Chechamma, W/o. Subba Rami Reddy, Piler, Chittoor Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor 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 issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned notice ROC B1/4760 /08 dated 11-11-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent asking the petitioners as to why the patta cannot be cancelled within 7 days as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction sand consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27789 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners filed instant writ petition challenging notice bearing No.ROC.B1/4760/08, dated 11.11.2008, issued by second respondent advising them to appear before him in person or through Advocate on 25.11.2008 at 11.00 am and submit explanation as to why pattas in their names should not be cancelled. The background of the matter as alleged by petitioners is that they were allotted land admeasuring Acs.0.2½ each on 11.4.2007. The land is comprised in survey No.547/1 situated at Piler in Chittoor District and was assigned for the purpose of construction of houses. On an allegation that petitioners did not construct houses in the lands allotted to them within stipulated time and that they are not residing there, impugned notice is issued. After hearing learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), this Court is of considered opinion that writ petition is misconceived. No adverse order is passed against petitioners. Even if contents of impugned notice are not correct and that they have taken up work for constructing houses, it is always open to them to approach second respondent and produce proof of residence, proof that they have taken up construction work and request second respondent to withdraw impugned notice. Instead of the same, they straightaway rushed to his Court without approaching second respondent. In such a situation, writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, observing that petitioners should approach second respondent and produce entire evidence to dispel allegations. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 22, 2008. YS To 1 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 3 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4 Two CD copies.