IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FISRT DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 4968 of 2008 Between: 1 Easam Chinna Ramaiah S/o Muthaiah R/o Subhashnagar, H/o Sudimalla, Yellandu mandal, Khammam District. 2 Messu Bikshamaiah S/o narasaiah r/o Gagadamba Gumpu H/o Sudhimalla, yellandu Mandal, Khammam District. 3 Cheemala Rajamma W/o mallaiah r/o Kollapuram, H/o Sudhimalla, yellandu Mandal, Khammam district. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District collector, Khammam Khammam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Kothagudem Division, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 3 The Tahsildar, yellandu Mandal, Khammam 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioner for acquiring their lands to an extent of ac. 9.09 guntas of Land in Sy. No. 609 of Yellandu Village & mandal, Khammam District as illegal, violation of Article 14 and 156 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PULLA RAO YELLANKI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioners are in possession of lands to an extent of Ac.9.09 guntas in Sy.No.609 situate at Yellandu Village and Mandal, Khammam District. The Government proposed to acquire certain lands, including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of Degree College. It is alleged that the respondents, treating their land as assigned, are proposing to acquire the same without paying compensation on par with other landowners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further alleged that even if the land is treated as an assigned one, the petitioner are entitled to compensation on par with other landowners, in view of the judgment of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v. Mekala Pandu[1]. Therefore, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for their lands. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government for Land Acquisition and perused the record. There is no dispute that the land in question is proposed to be acquired for a public purpose. The dispute is only with regard to payment of compensation. It is the case of the respondents that as the land in question is an assigned one, petitioners are entitled to exgratia only. However, it is to be seen that in view of the judgment of this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case (supra), even if the acquired land is an assigned land, the Government is liable to pay full compensation to the assignee under the provisions of that Act. However, the point is as to whether any assigned land is notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act or not. If any assigned land is also notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, the other consequences under the Act would follow and if the land in question is not one of those lands notified under the provisions of the Act, the petitioners are entitled to exgratia, equivalent to the market value, in terms of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. However, as the judgment rendered by this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case (supra) is pending before the Supreme Court, the petitioners can enforce their right to claim full compensation only when the view of this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case is upheld by the Supreme Court. Since the respondents offered exgratia to the petitioners, they can accept the same by reserving their right to claim other benefits under the Act, after the Supreme Court decides the issue. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay full compensation to the petitioners, as per the provisions of the Act. However, this Mandamus shall be enforceable subject to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in Mekala Pandu’s case (supra). There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. 1.5.2008 kpr [1] 2004(2) ALD 451 (LB)S