ORDER : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 8, and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 9 and 10, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 8th respondent had caused publication of notice dt.10.09.2024 vide Lr.No.B/488/2024, enclosing therewith Socio Economic Survey (SES) Report under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Act of 2013'), where under the petitioners' claim for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits was rejected stating that the petitioners have already received the R&R benefits, and called upon the affected parties as mentioned therein to submit their objections to the same within seven days; that the petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid SES Report, have submitted their explanation on 17.09.2024; and that no orders have been passed thereon till date. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that while the aforesaid representation/objections submitted by the petitioners in response to the publication caused on 10.09.2024 is pending consideration, the authorities have issued notice under Section 22 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950'), calling upon the petitioners as to why action should not be taken under the Act for deletion of their names from the electoral rolls under Section 22 of the Act of 1950 read with Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (for short, 'the Rules'). 4. Petitioners further contend that it is the same set of revenue authorities, who have caused publication on 10.09.2024 calling upon the person aggrieved by the SES Report to submit objections, have issued the notice under the Act of 1950 proposing to exclude the names of the petitioners from the electoral rolls without taking decision on the objections filed by the petitioners in response to the publication caused on 10.09.2024 and that by the aforesaid exercise, if the respondents- authorities without taking any decision on the objections filed by the petitioners are allowed to proceed further, they would achieve what they cannot do directly. Thus, the action of the respondents in causing the publication of Lr.No.B/488/2024 is illegal and in violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submit that while the publication dt.10.09.2024 is in relation to land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 2013, as amended by the Telangana State under Act 21 of 2017, whereby the objections are called for, from the aggrieved persons in relation to SES Report, while the notice in Format B is a notice issued under Section 22(2) of the Act of 1950, regarding the deletion of the names of petitioners from the electoral roles. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, both the proceedings are only notices, petitioners can submit their objections thereto. 6. It is the further contention of the respondents that both the proceedings being independent of one another, merely because it is the same said revenue authority, who is discharging the aforesaid functions under two different enactments, the petitioners cannot claim that the authorities are seeking to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly. 7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 8. It is to be seen that by the publication dt.10.09.2024, objections have been called for on the SES report published by the authorities to be filed within seven days and admittedly, the petitioners have filed objections on 17.09.2024 and that the same is pending consideration. The said proceedings have been issued under the signature of the 8th respondent. 9. Merely because the Revenue Divisional Officer, who issued notice in Format B under section 22 of the Act of 1950 calling upon the petitioners to submit their objections as to why their names should not be deleted from the electoral rolls, is from the Revenue Department, the petitioners cannot assume that the authorities have either rejected their objections or do not want to consider the same and thereby, achieving what they cannot do directly. 10. 10. Further, it is also to be seen that the Format B issued under Section 22 of the Act of 1950, is also a notice calling upon the noticee to submit objections or appear personally before the authority on the given date, to indicate as to why their names should not be deleted from the electoral rolls and if the petitioners feel that their claim in response to the publication dt.10.09.2024 is pending consideration, the said fact can also be brought to the notice of the authorities by appearing personally or by filing objections. 11. However, the petitioners assuming that by issuing a notice in Formant-B under Section 22 of the Act of 1950, the authorities have rejected their objections without passing any order, have filed the present Writ Petition, which action of the petitioners, in the considered view of this Court, is premature. More so, because of the reason that each of the said proceedings are under different enactments. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the challenge to the impugned proceeding in the present Writ Petition is premature and the petitioners have to await the decision to be taken by the 8th respondent, pursuant to the objections filed by the petitioners on 17.09.2024. 13. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.