THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.3458 of 2010 DATED: 30.04.2010 Between: Meruva Subbamma and another .. Petitioners and The District Collector, Kadapa District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioners claim to be the assignees of lands in an extent of Ac.5.00 each in Sy.No.1001/1 of Peddapalli Village, Siddavatam Mandal of Kadapa District, under D-Form pattas. They state that at the time of assignment, the subject lands were dry lands, but later, they have brought them into cultivation with great difficulty and except the subject lands, they have no other source of income. While so, the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar, Siddavatam Mandal, issued the impugned notice dated 22.08.2009, stating that the subject lands are required for public purpose i.e. for establishment of a park by A.P.I.I.C. Limited, the 4th respondent herein, and hence they are required to be resumed to Government, that as per Condition No.17 in D-Form patta, if the land assigned is required for public purpose, it can be resumed without paying any compensation, and if the petitioners have any objections, they have to raise the same within 15 days of the notice or attend before the 3rd respondent on 07.09.2009 to submit their objections, failing which, the lands would be resumed to Government treating that they have no objections, and compensation will be paid as per their eligibility. Petitioners state that, pursuant to the impugned notice, they have submitted their objections to the 3rd respondent on 05.09.2009, stating that except the subject lands, they do not own any other lands and that the subject lands are the only source of income for them and that, earlier, for the very same purpose, the lands at Madhavaram Village were proposed to be acquired, but not acquired, and instead of their lands, which are agricultural lands, the said lands at Madhavaram, being dry lands, can be acquired for the intended purpose. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, without considering their objections and passing any orders thereon, the 3rd respondent is taking steps to evict them from the subject lands. Respondent No.4- A.P.I.I.C. Limited filed a detailed counter- affidavit explaining as to how the establishment of proposed industrial park would constitute a public purpose and as to the advantages to the public at large, by its establishment. It is also categorically stated that the petitioners will not be deprived of their assigned lands without being compensated therefor and ex-gratia would be paid to them for resumption of the subject lands. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent- A.P.I.I.C.L. Having regard to the fact that no orders are passed by the 3rd respondent on the objections raised by the petitioners on 05.09.2009 and in view of the stand taken by the 4th respondent that the petitioners would not be deprived of their lands without being compensated therefor, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose it of with the following directions: “The 3rd respondent shall consider the objections raised by the petitioners on 05.09.2009 and pass appropriate orders as per law, as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the subject lands, if they are continuing in possession of the same as of now. It is made clear that, if the lands of the petitioners are required for establishment of industrial park by the 4th respondent, the respondent authorities shall acquire the same only after paying compensation/ex-gratia to the petitioners.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 30th April, 2010 IBL