IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2951 of 2008 Between: 1 Quamar W/o.Mirza 2 Marepaka Laxmamma W/o.Yellaiah 3 Ballem Iddamma W/o.Venkataiah 4 Nelluri Anjamma W/o.Sydaiah 5 Kireeta W/o.Param Jyothi 6 Mandala Dhanamma W/o.Lingaiah 7 Gousia Begum W/o.RAsheed 8 Yekula Kanthamma W/o.Samuel 9 Vaskula Rajamma W/o.Sampathaiah 10 Reddy Mangamma W/o.Venkataiah 11 Kappera Ramulu S/o.Yellappa 12 Andugula Ramulamma W/o.Sreenaiah 13 Ramavath Bujji W/o.Motilal 14 Maddimadugu Marthamma W/o.Ramulu 15 Parvatham Ramaswamy S/o.Jangaiah (All are residents of Konda Mallepalli village, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District.) ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. A.P. 2 The REvenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 3 The Tahsildar, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to re-allot the land of the petitioners in sy.No. 115, situated at Konda Mallepally village, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District by canceling Pattas of the petitioners as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondent herein not to allot the land to some others by canceling the Pattas of the petitioners and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.THIMOTHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The writ petition is premature and misconceived. The 15 petitioners claim to be landless poor persons and dependant on labour for sustenance. The 3rd respondent issued house pattas to them of an extent of 100 sq. yards each in S.No.115 at Kondamallepalli village, Deverkonda mandal, Nalgonda District , in the year 2000. Possession certificates were also given to petitioners 11 to 15. The petitioners apprehending that at the instigation of Congress leaders, the 3rd respondent is attempting to re-allot the land to some others by canceling their pattas and towards the said purpose is making survey of the land, have filed the writ petition for a declaration that the action of the respondents in trying to re-allot the land to some others by canceling the pattas in favour of the petitioners is illegal and unsustainable and for a direction to the respondents not to re-allot the land to others. Though the District Collector, Nalgonda, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda are impleaded as respondents 1 and 2, as usual the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Deverkonda has alone filed a counter affidavit. The sanction of house site pattas to the petitioners is admitted. It is however suggested in the counter affidavit that some of the petitioners are not eligible since they failed to produce any evidence to show their local residence. It is also asserted that none of the petitioners are living at Kondamallepalli village and are living in various villages. The conduct of the survey is also admitted but stated to be for the purpose of finding out the local habitat of the petitioners. In para 8 of the counter, the answering respondent denies re-allotment of house site pattas to others by canceling the earlier pattas. In para 12 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that on verification of the records by the answering respondent, the patta certificates filed by the petitioners 11 to 13 and 15 are seen to be false, forged and fabricated. The respondent never issued patta certificate to 14th petitioner, as per the record. Apart from the denial of the petitioners claim in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it is required to be noticed that the writ petition has been filed even without any orders of cancellation being passed. It is not possible to adjudicate whether the potential executive action would be invalid. It is only when an order is passed and communicated to the petitioners, by which the petitioners are negatively impacted, the executive action could be judged whether it is arbitrary or invalid for violation of some legal principle such as the audi alteram partem principle. Advance ruling of potential executive conduct is impermissible. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. As and when a cause of action arises, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy. ____________________ dt. 23.4.2009. GODA RAGHURAM,J krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 2951 of 2008 Dated: 23.4.2009.