THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 16528 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted questioning the validity of the show cause notice dated 08.04.2011 issued by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar calling upon the writ petitioner to show cause as to why the assignment made to him of land of an extent of Ac.2.00 in Survey No. 278 and land of an extent of Ac.3.00 in Survey No. 189 at Mudwin Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District should not be cancelled under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. Though several contentions have been raised in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the writ petitioner urges that the Joint Collector is proceeding with the matter all due to the pressure exerted on him by the leaders of Dalit Bahujana Samakya Union but not on his own and secondly, the Joint Collector has proceeded on a misconception of fact that the writ petitioner is having patta land of Ac.9.31 guntas in his name and that he has transferred Ac.4.26 guntas out of the same to Sri Shekar Reddy and Danamma and therefore, there is no valid basis for the impugned show cause notice. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the respondents are not supplying the necessary documents asked for by the writ petitioner. He finally submits that the respondents must pass a reasoned order dealing with the objections raised by him and should not mechanically reject his objections. A show cause notice can be interfered with at this stage only if it is demonstrated that the authority, who issued the same, prima facie lacks jurisdiction to do so. The veracity or the tenability of the claims contained in the show cause notice cannot be examined at this stage nor do they offer any foundation for striking at the show cause notice. Therefore, I am not willing to entertain any of the contentions canvassed by the writ petitioner. However, the learned counsel is right in his submission that the 2nd respondent Joint Collector should pass an appropriate and reasoned order dealing with the objections raised by the writ petitioner. A reasoned order at best would disclose the lines on which the authority applied his mind to the issue. At worst, it will be free from caprice or prejudice of the authority. It is only the reasons available on the face of the record that offer an insight into the value- based judgment of the authority passing the order. Therefore, it is totally obligatory on the part of the 2nd respondent, a quasi-judicial authority, to assign proper reasons while dealing with the objections raised by the writ petitioner, which form the basis for his conclusions. Similarly, if the writ petitioner approaches the 2nd respondent for affording an opportunity of hearing before the issue is concluded, the 2nd respondent may consider according him a personal hearing also in the matter, as that would help in the petitioner clarifying his position to the 2nd respondent. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of right at the admission stage. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 16th June 2011 Issue CC in three days. ksld