JUDGMENT : The petitioner in W.P.No.32608 of 2011 was assigned a house site patta in respect of Plot No.13 in Sy.No.46 of Kakulavaram Village, Mahabubnagar District on 13.02.2009. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.32609 of 2011 was also assigned house site patta in respect of Plot No.15. These two writ petitions are filed challenging the show-cause notice dated 28.11.2011 issued by the respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, Gadwal Mandal, calling upon the petitioners to show-cause as to why the assignments in their favour should not be cancelled alleging that the house site pattas were obtained by four persons belonging to the same family. The impugned notice is assailed primarily on the ground that the 4th respondent who issued the impugned notice is not competent to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the assignments and therefore the impugned show-cause notice is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. It is also contended that the impugned notice is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1019, Revenue (Asn.I), dated 5.10.1994, according to which the definition of ‘family’ does not include a married son. Thus, according to the petitioners, the allegation that the assignments were granted to the members of the same family is unfounded. The respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit stating that as per A.P. Board Standing Orders 12 (3) (iii) the Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar, being the assigning authorities, are competent to order resumption in case of breach of conditions of grant. It is also stated that G.O.Ms.No.1019, dated 5.10.1994 is not applicable to the present case since the petitioners had fraudulently obtained the pattas. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contention that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction relied upon the decisions in EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH ( AIR 1996 SC 691 ) and G.MUNILAKSHMAMMA v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ( 1991 (1) ALT 617 ). The law is well settled that the writ petition at the stage of show-cause notice is premature unless it is found that such notice was issued without power or authority to initiate proceedings. Therefore, the only question that requires consideration is whether the 4th respondent – Tahsildar is competent to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of the assignments granted to the petitioners. Therefore, the only question that requires consideration is whether the 4th respondent – Tahsildar is competent to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of the assignments granted to the petitioners. The impugned notice was issued to show-cause as to why the house site pattas granted to the petitioners should not be cancelled. Though the notice did not refer to any provision of law under which the pattas are sought to be cancelled, the house site pattas granted to the petitioners show that the pattas were granted under BSO.21 (7) (11) and in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the power is sought to be traced to A.P. Board Standing Order-12. Admittedly the pattas are sought to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed the fact that all the four assignees belong to the same family and thus they had fraudulently obtained the pattas. It is also relevant to note that the pattas granted to the petitioners did not contain a clause that the pattas are liable to be cancelled if it is found that the pattas are obtained on misrepresentation or by playing fraud. The only condition prescribed in the pattas is to the effect that the land will be resumed in the event of violation of any of the conditions of patta. In identical circumstances, in G. MUNILAKSHMAMMA’S case (2 supra) it was held that the power of cancellation on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation can be exercised only by the Collector. In the said case, the D-form patta was sought to be cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the ground of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation. It was contended by the petitioner therein that the patta can be cancelled only under the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of BSO.15 (12) (3) and if for any other reason the patta is to be cancelled, it shall be by the Collector under BSO.15 (18). While interpreting para-18 of BSO.15 which deals with revisional power conferred on the Collector on the ground of material irregularity in the procedure or where the order was passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation, this Court accepted the contention of the petitioner and held that the power of cancellation can be exercised only by the Collector. The ratio laid down in the above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. As noticed above, the pattas issued to the petitioners are sought to be cancelled on the allegation that the petitioners had suppressed/misrepresented the facts, but not on the ground of violation of any of the conditions of patta. Thus it is clear that the action proposed is cancellation of pattas, but not resumption. Therefore, as held in G. MUNILAKSHMAMMA’S case (2 supra) the District Collector alone is competent to initiate proceedings. Consequently, the impugned show-cause notice issued by the 4th respondent – Tahsildar is without jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned show-cause notice is hereby set aside and both the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.