IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1 0 6 4 OF 2004 Between: Chandrasekhar s/o Rajeshwar, aged about 28 years, Occupation: Agriculture, r/o Gajili (K) village, Neredigonda Revenue Mandal, Adilabad District. …. Appellant V/s. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad district & 2-Ors. …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Chandrasekhar Counsel for the Respondents: Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1 0 6 4 OF 2004 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) This writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 05-4-2004 passed in Review WPMP.No. 15157 of 2003 in WP.No. 15823 of 2002 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the review application holding that the order dated 28-3-2003 passed in WP.No. 15823 of 2002 suffers from any error apparent on the face of record and that the appellant-review petitioner failed to make out any ground as stipulated in Order-47, Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. In Review WPMP.No.15157 of 2003 in WP.No. 15823 of 2003, the grounds urged by the review petitioner is that according to GO.Ms.No. 1307, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 23-12-1993 and the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (1) ALT-498, the entitlement of the review petitioner is that (a) market value and (b) interest from the date of dispossession to date of payment and that the review petitioner’s land has been acquired in the year 1998. Hence, the review petitioner seeks market value on the acquired land and interest from 1998 to till date of payment. Secondly, the order dated 20-9-2002 passed in OP.No.271 of 1999 by the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, wherein the acquired land under the award is at Rs.27,000=00 per acre. Hence, the review petitioner seeks the said market value. Thirdly, according to the letter dated 03-11-2000 of Revenue Divisional Officer, it was admitted that the respondents were ready to pay compensation pursuant to GO.Ms.No. 1307 dated 23-12-1993 but the same has been fixed at Rs.3,61,920/-. The said fixation of compensation without mentioning interest is contrary to the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. 3. After hearing both sides, the learned single Judge observed that it is not permissible to review the order dated 28-3-2003 passed in WP.No. 15823 of 2003 on the ground that having accepted the stand taken by the respondents that the land in question being assigned land, the review petitioner is only entitled for ex-gratia and for payment of ex-gratia the learned single Judge while disposing of the main writ petition on 28-3-2003 directed the respondents to pay ex-gratia to which the review petitioner is entitled to as per the terms of the grant, within two months from the date of receipt of the order. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the land in an extent of Ac:1-16 guntas situated in Survey No.50 of Gajjali village was in possession of the review petitioner has been deleted by the first respondent from the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the said land is Government land, which was assigned to the eligible persons. Inasmuch as the Government resumed the said land for the purpose of construction of tank, compensation was not paid, as the said lands were assigned lands and that the assignees are entitled only for ex-gratia as per the terms of grant but in the present case the appellant- review petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the letter dated 11-5-2001 of the Revenue Divisional Officer goes to show that ex-gratia payable to the assigned lands in Gajjili village has already been assessed. Therefore, the appellant- review petitioner being an assignee is not entitled for compensation but the appellant is only entitled for ex-gratia as per the terms of the grant. Therefore, the writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed inlimini. 5. Heard both sides and perused the order dated 05-4-2004 passed in Review WPMP.No. 15157 of 2003 in WP.No. 15823 of 2002 by the learned single Judge. 6. After hearing both sides, we do not see any error apparent on the face of record. The order impugned in this writ appeal goes to show that the learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellant being an assignee is not entitled for any compensation but he is entitled for ex-gratia as per the terms of the grant. 7. Under the above circumstances, we express our disinclination to interfere with the order dated 05-4-2004 passed in Review WPMP.No. 15157 of 2003 in WP.No.15823 of 2002 by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ___________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 02-XII-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1 0 6 4 OF 2004. Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 99 02-XII-2009. COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L