IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9569 of 2008 Between: Parupalli Narayana S/o. Late Narsimhulu R/o. Tangudubili Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The distrcit Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Dist. 2 The Tahsildar Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing Proceeding Rc.No. 211/2007/A, Dt. 31-8-2007 recommending for cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the Petitioner in respect of assigned land of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No. 13 Thangudubuli Village, Anadapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and consequential proceedings issued by the Respondent No. 2 in Rc.No. 2294/2007/E1 dt. 24-3-2008 as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, improper and set aside the same and further direct the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to sell away the assigned land in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1117 dt. 1111-1993 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SREE RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 9569 of 2008 22-04-2009 Oral Order: The writ petition is premature and misconceived. The 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 24-03- 2008 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why land in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in survey No. 13 of Tangudubilli village, which was purportedly assigned to him earlier, be not cancelled and resumed to the Government. On 16-04-2008 the petitioner submitted an explanation setting up his defence to the proposed action for cancellation of his earlier purported assignment. While so, it would appear that the Tahasildar, Anandapuram addressed a letter dated 31-08-2007 to the 1st respondent, pursuant to a report purportedly called for by the 1st respondent stating, that the Tahasildar’s confidential enquiries revealed that the petitioner had obtained a provisional order for assignment, but was never in possession of the land and the petitioner also negotiated with encroachers and obtained hostile possession under the guise of being an ex-serviceman and on that basis obtained a pattedar passbook and title deed fraudulently even without a ‘D-Form patta’. The letter dated 31-08-2007 is not a letter either marked or communicated to the petitioner. It is the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Anandapuram Mandal to the Collector presumably on a report called for by the 1st respondent. In the affidavit, the petitioner is designedly silent as to the method of obtaining this letter dated 31-08-2007, but has yet chosen to challenge the same. The impugned letter dated 31-08-2007 does not per se constitute any executive action nor does it prejudice the petitioner. Sri V. Sree Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that no finding can be recorded by the 1st respondent on the basis of a clandestine enquiry by the 2nd respondent. The principle as stated on behalf of the petitioner may be unexceptional. However, no order has been passed by the 1st respondent pursuant to the earlier show cause notice dated 24-03-2008. As and when the 1st respondent passes an order and the order is vitiated for any reason, the petitioner has a cause of action. The letter of the 2nd respondent is however not liable to be impeached. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is however at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in case final orders are passed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-04-2009 Pvks