THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.13259 of 2004 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of different extents of agricultural land in all admeasuring Acs.15.001/2 guntas situated in Survey Nos.52, 61, 62, 53/1 and 53/2 of Gangapur Village, Narnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. The said lands were assigned to them long back and they developed the said lands and cultivating the same. In respect of the said lands, patta certificates were also issued to them in 1995. While so, in 2002-2003, respondents 2 and 3 acquired the said lands for the purpose of formation of new tank across the local stream. It is stated that the first respondent-Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Utnoor passed award dated 21.06.2003 determining the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.15,000/- per acre. But, however, the respondents have paid them only fixed compensation equivalent to market value and 30% solatium on the ground that the said lands were assigned lands. It is stated that no other benefits were awarded to them and they were not even permitted to file an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for enhancement of compensation. It is further stated that the Larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mekalapandu[1] held that the assigned landowners are also entitled to full compensation in terms of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay full compensation in terms of the said judgment. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the acquired lands are assigned lands; that the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assign.I) Department, dated 23.12.1993, and that the question of payment of interest thereon and also referring the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18(1) of the Act does not arise, since the petitioners are assignees. At the hearing, it is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that exgratia was already paid to the petitioners herein and that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in P.Mallaiah v. Government of A.P. rep. By Secretary, Irrigation & Command Area Development Department[2], wherein this Court held as under: “Whether the Government is bound to pay compensation to the assignees under the provisions of the Act where such assigned lands are resumed by the Government for public purpose? A Full Bench of five learned Judges of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v Bondapalli Sanyasi (2002(2)ALD 1(L.B)) while overruling the earlier decision of Full Bench of three learned Judges in State of A.P. v P.Peda Chinnayya (1996(2)ALD1215(F.B), held that when the land is resumed in terms of the grant, no compensation be payable towards resumption of land and that compensation, however, is payable if the lands have not been resumed by following due process of law. The Full Bench of seven learned Judges in Mekala Pandu case (supra) on reconsideration of the issue did not accept the view of the Full Bench of five learned Judges in Bondapalli Sanyasi case (supra) and held that assignees of Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession by the State in accordance with the terms of the grant. It was also held that the conditions incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall not operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land. It is brought to the notice of this Court that State has filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against Mekala Pandu case (supra). This Supreme Court has passed orders staying any further payment of compensation which only means that even if assigned lands are resumed, the State need not pay any compensation as per the provisions of the Act in view of the stay orders. Though the ratio in Mekala Pandu case (supra) applies to this case, having regard to the orders of the stay, the petitioner can enforce his right to claim compensation only when the view of this Court in Mekala Pandu case (supra) is upheld. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in accordance with the orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.1307, the market value at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per acre was paid to the petitioner (total amount of Rs.15,698/-), which includes 15% additional ex-gratia as per the Government Order. But, as per the decision in Mekala P andu case (supra), the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, that is to say, solatium, additional compensation and interest. A Mandamus shall issue in the above terms. However, Mandamus shall be enforceable subject to Judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal filed against Mekala Pandu case (supra).” In the circumstances, following the above said judgment of this Court in P.Mallaiah’s case (2 supra), this writ petition is disposed of and the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the Act, that is to say, solatium, additional compensation and interest. A Mandamus shall be issued in the above terms. However, Mandamus shall be enforceable subject to Judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal filed against LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Hyd. v. Mekala Pandu (2004(2) ALT 546). There shall be no order as to costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Dated: 23.03.2010 va [1] 2004 (2) ALT 546 [2] 2006(2) ALT 742