ORDER : The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is issuance of notice by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar for cancellation of respective D-form pattas issued in their favour said to be based on an enquiry Report Rc.B/46/2020, dated 17.03.2022 of the 4th respondent, which was conducted behind their back, and further to consider their respective representations submitted in response to the notices issued to them. 2. Heard Sri Subrahmanyam, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Yelisetty Soma Raju, learned Government Pleader. 3. Inasmuch as the issue involved in all these writ petitions is identical, all these writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 4. Sri Subrahmanyam, learned counsel, in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavits, would submit that the petitioners were assigned agricultural lands by the Assignment Committee and accordingly they were granted D.K.T.pattas for their respective extents and eversince they have been cultivating their lands and in recognition thereof their names were entered in webland adangals. The learned counsel would further submit that while so, the petitioners received notice issued by 4th respondent to attend the office with documents to prove their ownership over the respective extents of lands alleging that their names were entered in revenue records without consent of Assignment Committee and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners approached the 4th respondent to submit their written explanations, but the 4th respondent refused to receive and succumbing to political pressures sent report to 2nd respondent-District Collector as if the petitioners got the assignment of lands irregularly and by suppressing the true facts got pattadar and title passbooks for the said extents in their names. The learned counsel would further submit that that respondent nos.4 and 5 are making efforts to cancel the pattas without following the procedure contemplated under law and are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective extents of lands. If the respondent authorities are allowed to cancel the pattas that too basing on the enquiry report which was conducted behind back of the petitioners and which was issued without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the same would adversely affect the sole source of livelihood of the petitioners. If the respondent authorities are allowed to cancel the pattas that too basing on the enquiry report which was conducted behind back of the petitioners and which was issued without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the same would adversely affect the sole source of livelihood of the petitioners. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petitions, setting aside the notices as well as enquiry report and further directing the authorities not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader would contend that in the enquiry conducted it came to light that the petitioners without the consent of the Assignment Committee got their names entered into the revenue records and further by misrepresenting the facts got pattadar and title deed passbooks for the subject lands and therefore the petitioners were asked through the notices impugned in these writ petitions to submit explanation asking them to attend the office along with documents of title over the properties said to have been assigned to them and therefore the said notices cannot be questioned by filing a writ petition in view of the settled principle of law that show-cause notices cannot be impugned by filing writ petition. The learned Government Pleader would further contend that if any action is proposed for cancellation of D form pattas claimed by the petitioners, they would follow the procedure contemplated under law. There are no merits in these writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. 6. Perusal of the contents of the writ affidavits and the material placed on record would indicate that a complaint was made in Spandana programme stating that names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records for the respective extents without consent of assignment committee and without following nativity and thereupon the Sub Collector, Kandukur ordered enquiry and submit report. Pursuantly, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar issued notices to the petitioners and stated to have conducted an enquiry and submitted report to the 2nd respondent-District Collector in Rc.B/46/2020, dated 17.03.2022 stating that most of the land was vacant on ground and some part of the land was in possession and enjoyment of one Adusumalli Narendra and despite issuance of notice, most of the pattadars have not submitted their connected records, address proofs and how the land was assigned to them. The report further states that during verification of the Assignment Committee Registers available in the office, it reveals that names of the petitioners and survey numbers are not included in them and therefore, it is clear that the petitioners got assignment of land irregularly and also got pattadar and title deed passbooks and got entered their names in online webland by suppressing the facts and therefore to give directions to take necessary action in this regard. 7. The petitioners contend that they approached the 4th respondent- Tahsildar in response to the notices issued to them and when they offered their written explanations, the 4th respondent did not receive them and submitted the report to the 2nd respondent-District Collector stating that the petitioners did not submit any explanation and therefore, the enquiry report is not sustainable, since the same was submitted without considering the written explanations submitted by the petitioners. 8. The record discloses that this Court granted status quo for a limited period on 16.06.2022. Though the matter is of the year 2022, the respondents did not choose to file counter. Except a bald averment in the writ affidavit that the authorities came to the subject properties and attempted to dispossess them, no material whatsoever is placed on record suggesting further action pursuant to the impugned notices and enquiry report. This makes it clear that on mere apprehension that the authorities may proceed to cancel the pattas and dispossess them from the subject lands, these writ petitions were filed. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that the authorities would follow the due procedure contemplated under law before taking any action pursuant to the notices and enquiry report impugned in these writ petitions, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the above, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Needless to observe that the respondent authorities shall follow due procedure contemplated under law before taking further course of action basing on the enquiry report and further they shall not interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject lands except under due process of law. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.