THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6204 of 2000 Dated : 02.07.2007 Between: Enika Kamaraju, S/o. Kannaiah, R/o. Kunavaram Village, Hamlet of Samithisingaram Village, Manuguru Mandal, Khamma District and others. ..... PETITIONERS And: Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Kothagudem, Khammam District and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6204 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioners are landless poor persons, who were assigned the land in Sy.No.314 situated at Samithisingaram village of Manuguru Mandal in Khammam District, in the year 1958. The first respondent-Singareni Collieries Company Limited, took possession of the assigned lands of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of quarters to its staff, and stated to have promised the petitioners to provide employment to one member in their family and to provide alternative land. As the first respondent failed to fulfill its promise even after repeated representations, petitioners filed O.S.No.182 of 1992 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. However, the said suit was dismissed holding that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation as neither it was resumed to Government nor any acquisition proceedings are initiated, and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute regarding the lands covered by agency areas. Petitioners allege that as the Government and the Agent to the Government are parties to the said suit, who took the stand that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation, it would be a futile exercise in again approaching the Agent to the Government, and hence they filed the instant writ petition seeking appropriate directions in this regard. The first respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit admitting most of the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. But, it is stated that compensation could not be paid to the petitioners, as the government has not fixed the same. Despite service of notices, respondents 2,3 and 4 have not chosen to file any counter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Government Pleader for Assignment. No doubt, the learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to impress upon this Court stating that the land in question belongs to Government, and hence, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. May be it is true that the land in question is a Government land, but as the petitioners are claiming that they were assigned the same as early as in the year 1958 and when it is acquired for the purpose of construction of quarters to the workers working with the first respondent, in my considered view the respondents are bound to pay compensation to the petitioners, having regard to the ratio laid down in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v Mekala Pandu[1]. However, it appears that the Government questioned the said judgment in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings. So, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, in the light of the said stay granted by the Supreme Court, compensation could not be paid to the petitioner. Further, from a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of this writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is clear that the first respondent is always willing to pay compensation to the petitioners, whenever the Government fixes it. Even the Government had not denied the fact that the petitioners are assignees. In fact, with regard to the subject matter of this writ petition, petitioners filed a suit, being O.S.No.182 of 1992, and the Government filed written statement, wherein it is clearly stated that the petitioners herein belong to weaker sections and they are assigned the lands in Sy.No.314 situated at Samithisingaram village of Manuguru Mandal. Subsequently, the said suit was dismissed. This Court is not concerned with the said judgment. As stated supra, even if the petitioners are assignees and the said land is acquired for public purpose, they are entitled to compensation, but in the light of the stay granted by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that no direction can be given to the respondents to pay compensation. However, Government, by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993, revised its policy and issued instructions directing payment of exgratia in lumpsum, equivalent to the market value, to the assignees whose lands are resumed for the projects and other public purposes. This Court is of the view that the respondents can as well be directed to pay exgratia in lumpsum to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307. For this purpose, the Government, which has agreed to fix exgratia, may fix the same in terms of the said Government Order and the same be paid to the first respondent. If ultimately the Supreme Court upholds the ratio laid down by this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case, then the Government may fix the compensation under the provisions of the Act and shall be paid to the first respondent, duly giving credit to the amount, which has already been paid by virtue of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ sh 02.07.2007 [1] 2004(2) ALD 451 (LB)