THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 666 of 2005 Dated: 19-7-2011 Between Secretary to Govt. Department of Revenue, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Appellants And Danavath Narsimha and another …Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) A Seven Judges Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda Hyderabad v. Mekala Pandu[1] enuntiated the ratio 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, where such assigned land is repossessed by the State, even in cases where the lands are resumed by the State in accordance with the terms of the grant; and that the conditions incorporated in the patta/deed of assignment shall not operate as a clog depriving the right of assignee to claim full compensation as owner of land. It is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition-learned counsel for the appellants herein that as against the judgment in Mekala Pandu (1 supra), the State has filed a Special Leave Petition and the Supreme Court has granted interim stay, by an order dated 24-1-2005 with respect to the obligation of further payment of compensation, consequent on the judgment in Mekala Pandu (1 supra). It is not the case of the appellants-State that the judgment of the Larger Bench in Mekala Pandu (1 supra) has gone into plenary eclipse by an order of suspension passed by the Supreme Court. The present appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12-3-2004 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents seeking compensation for lands, of an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No. 459 and Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No. 461 of Chintapally village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District; land assigned to the writ petitioners, which was taken back by the State without payment of compensation. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would contend that since the Special Leave Petition by the State is pending before the Supreme Court, the State need not pay compensation for the respondents herein, before a final view is taken on the law declared in Mekala Pandu (1 supra), by the Supreme Court. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Division Bench reported in K.Yella Reddy v. The Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad[2] for contending that the judgment in Mekala Pandu (1 supra) is no longer operative proprio vigore. This is the contention that is stated to be rejected. The learned Division Bench in K.Yella Reddy (2 supra) was considering a fact situation where the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court was stayed and the operation of the judgment suspended by the Supreme Court. Accordingly and in the circumstances, this Court distinguished the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in K. Venkata Reddy v. LAO[3], on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain,[4] which held that the legal effect of an order of the Supreme Court suspending the operation of the judgment is that the order of the High is nullified for the nonce till the appeal is disposed of, by the Supreme Court. The above judgment does not lend sustenance to the learned Government Pleader’s contention as the judgment of the Larger Bench in Mekala Pandu (1 supra) has not been suspended by the Supreme Court, as already noticed. In the circumstances the ratio of Mekala Pandu (1 supra) is operative proprio vigore. The learned Government Pleader also placed for the consideration of this Bench the judgment of a learned single Judge in P.Mallaiah v. Govt. of A.P. rep. by Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department[5] wherein the learned Single Judge, after noticing that in the Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment in Mekala Pandu (1 supra), the Supreme Court had passed orders staying further payment of compensation only, had allowed the writ petition and issued a Mandamus declaring the writ petitioner therein to be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act including Solatium, additional compensation and interest, but observed that the Mandamus issued would be enforceable subject to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal directed against the judgment in Mekala Pandu (1 supra). We are not persuaded to record a hiatus in effectuation of Mandamus as observed in P.Mallaiah (5 supra). As the ratio of Mekala Pandu(1 supra) is enforceable proprio vigore, the respondents herein-the writ petitioners are entitled to a Mandamus ex debito justicia and there is no legal principle on which the issue of Mandamus could be postponed on the assumption that the State might succeed in its Special Leave Petition, but given the context that the judgment in Mekala Pandu (1 supra) has not been suspended. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 19th July, 2011 ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J GRR [1] 2004 (2) ALT 546 (LB) [2] 1996(3) ALT 1047 (DB) [3] 1994 (1) ALT 227 (DB) [4] AIR 1975 SC 1590 [5] 2006 (2) ALT 742