IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5953 of 2008 Between: 1 Kodadala Lakshmi Reddy S/o Kesava Reddy 2 Kodadala Chenna Reddy S/o Kesava Reddy 3 Kodadala Nagabhushana Reddy S/o Lakshmi Reddy 4 Kodadala Madhava Reddy S/o Lakshmi Reddy (All are Agriculturists and r/o Sarvarajupet Village, Veerappanayunipalli Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Special Collector (LA), GNSS., Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Special Deputy Collector (LA), GNSS., Unit-II, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proceeding to pay only ex-gratia vide impugned order in Memo No. 21070/Maj.Irrig.VI/2007-4, dt 01-02-2008 to the petitioners lands in Sy. no's 317/0A, 317/2, 317/3, and 317/4A to an extents of Ac. 6.05 2.70 2.98, 7.13 cents respectively situated at Indukur Village, V.N. Palli Mandal, Kadapa District on the premise that the lands are assigned lands even though the petitioners are the owners/pattadars of the said land even otherwise also petitioners are entitled to full compensation as per L.A. Act., in view of the larger Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court, in Mekala Pandu case reported in 2004(2) ALT 546 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of ARt. 14, 19,21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay full compensation by invoking the provisions of L.A Act. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proceeding to pay only ex-gratia to the petitioners on the premise that their lands are assigned lands, vide impugned order dated 1.2.2008, even though the petitioners are the owners/pattadars of the lands and are entitled to full compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to pay full compensation to the petitioners towards acquisition of their lands by invoking the provisions of the Act. The petitioners assert that since 1942 they are the owners/pattadars of lands of various extents such as Ac.6.05, Ac.2.70, Ac.2.98 and Ac.7.13 cents in various survey numbers situated in Indukur village, V.N.Palli Mandal, Kadapa District and in continuous possession and enjoyment of them. When the respondents proposed to acquire their lands for Sarvajaja Sagar Project under G.N.S.S. Project, Kadapa, by paying ex-gratia on the ground that the lands in question are not patta lands, but only assigned lands, the petitioners made representation dated 9.6.2007 to the 1st respondent-District Collector. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that the respondents, without considering their representation, issued the impugned order stating that the lands in question are assigned lands and the petitioners are entitled to the payment of ex-gratia, but not entitled to full compensation. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in L.A.O.-cum-R.D.O, Chevella Division, Domalguda, Hyderabad Vs. Mekala Pandu[1] even if the land is an assigned land and the same is required for public purpose the assignee is entitled to payment of compensation as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Act. However, the point is as to whether any land is notified under the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act or not. If any assigned land is notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, the other consequences under the Act would follow and if the land is not one of those notified lands, the petitioners are entitled to payment of ex-gratia in terms of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. The judgment rendered by this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case, as cited supra, is pending before the Supreme Court. When the view of this Court is upheld by the Supreme Court, the petitioners can enforce their right to claim compensation. Now that the petitioners are offered to be paid only ex-gratia, the petitioners can accept it by reserving their right to be paid other benefits under the Act when once the Supreme Court decides the issue. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay full compensation to the petitioners subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mekala Pandu’s case, which is pending adjudication. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 19.03.2008 bcj [1] 2004(2) ALT 546