THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23327 of 2010 and C.C. No. 985 of 2008 Common order: The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to grant the following relief: To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the decision dated 14.11.2009 taken by the respondents to pay compensation at Rs.2,53,520/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Three Thousands Five Hundreds and Twenty only) for unconstitutional and illegal deprivation of property in an extent of Ac. 0.84 cents in Sy. No.210-1A, Acs. 4.00 cents in Sy. No.211-1C and Acs.3.62 cents in Sy. No. 212-1B of Narayanapuram village, Ananthapur as illegal, contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and consequently direct the Respondents to acquire the subject land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the order dated 12.10.2004 of this Court in W.P. No. 15957 of 1993 and pay Compensation therefore, and pass such other or further orders. The facts of the case may be briefly stated, and they run thus: The petitioners claim to be the heirs of one Dr. Chilukuri Narayana Rao, who was granted patta on 17.07.1944 in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 210/1 in an extent of Acs. 6.62 cents, in Sy. No. 211/1 in an extent of Acs. 20.13 cents, and in Sy. No. 212/1 in an extent of Acs. 10.40 cents, as per the Assignment Rules, in vogue. The petitioners state that the assignment contained special conditions, which read as follows: 1. The only condition in assignment is that the land shall not be transferred to any person other than a British Subject. 2. Till the assignment is made absolute by the Government, the Government have liberty to take the land back. 3. In case of taking back the land, the Sale Price or equivalent land in proportion will be given to the extent of land taken by the Government. 4. In case any improvement is made over the land, assigned prior to taking back of the land, the Government will not be responsible for payment of any developmental expenses. While the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment thereof, he states that on 17.07.1969, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued by the respondents for acquisition of certain lands, for formation of National Highway No.7 in the limits of Narayanapuram Village, Anantapur Town. The petitioner states that even though the lands covered by Sy. Nos. 210/1, 211/1 and 212/1 in an extent of Ac. 0.84 cents, Acs. 4.00 cents and Ac.3.62 cents, are not notified for acquisition for National Highway No. 7, yet the respondents have taken over possession of the said lands, without initiating land acquisition proceedings, like issuing any notification, conducting enquiry and paying compensation to the owners. That on 06.06.1973, Award No.1 of 73 was passed in respect of lands that were notified by Land Acquisition Officer for formation of Road. In the Award, it is stated that separate resumption orders will be passed for assigned lands, including the land covered by Sy. Nos. 210/A, 211/1C and 212/1B. However, the petitioners state that no separate proceedings for resumption were neither initiated nor any orders passed in respect of the lands in question. Thus the petitioners allege that deprivation of their valuable property without following the due process of law and without paying them compensation is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners along with two other heirs of Dr. Chilukuri Narayana Rao, have been agitating before the respondents, for initiation of land acquisition proceedings for the un-authorized dispossession and deprivation of the land in question. As the respondents did not initiate any land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question, they earlier filed writ petition in W.P. No. 15957 of 1993, praying for Issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioner in respect of the lands measuring an extent of Acs. 8.56 cents in Sy. Nos. 210/1, 211/1 and 212/1 situated in Narayanapuram, Ananthapur District, acquired by the respondents for the purpose of laying a bypass road, as unjust, arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to issue a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and pay the compensation at the market value, to the petitioners for the lands acquired by the respondents. In the said writ petition, the respondents filed the counter, admitted the fact of assignment with special conditions in favour of Dr. Chilakuri Nrayana Rao, and the taking over of land in an extent of Acs. 8.54 cents, for formation of Road, but pleaded that no compensation need be paid, as the land taken over by the Government from the petitioners, was assigned land. Ultimately, this Court on 12.10.2004, upon considering the rival contentions, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation for acquisition of the subject land, disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions: “ …The respondents are directed to pass award in accordance with law, in respect of the subject land ie., Ac.8.46 cents of land comprising Ac.0.84 cents in survey No.210/1A, Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.211/1C and Ac.3.62 cents in survey No.212/1B of Narayanapuram Village, Ananthapur District, for formation of bypass road on the National Highway No.7, as specified in the counter-affidavit, and take all necessary steps to pay compensation to the petitioners as per their entitlement. The above exercise of passing of award and payment of compensation shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs. Questioning the above order, the respondents filed writ appeal in W.A. [SR] No. 45015 of 2006, along with condone delay application in W.A.M.P. No. 1375 of 2006, praying to condone the delay of 493 days in filing the writ appeal. By order dated 18.07.2006, a Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the condone delay application and consequently the writ appeal on technicalities, and granted liberty to the respondents to file application for revival of the writ appeal along with fresh condone delay application supported by proper affidavit. Thereafter, the respondents filed W.A.M.P. No. 2175 of 2006, to recall the order dated 18.07.2006, and they also filed W.A.M.P. No. 477 of 2009 praying to condone delay of 920 days in filing the revival application. By order dated 16.03.2009, a Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the condone delay application, refused to recall the order dated 18.07.2006 and dismissed W.A. [SR] No. 45015 of 2010, holding that it is barred by limitation. During the pendency of the writ appeal proceedings, the petitioners filed contempt case in C.C. No. 1247 of 2007 complaining violation of order dated 12.10.2004 in W.P. No. 15957 of 1993. The respondents-contemnors, through respondent No. 2 therein filed counter, the relevant portion of which reads are as follows: “Compensation could not be paid to the Petitioners so far, as the Requisitioning department has not provided funds to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. The District Collector, Anantapur and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur have taken all the steps to obtain requisition and funds from the Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Anantapur for initiating Land Acquisition Proceedings and for payment of compensation. But so far no funds are provided by the Executive Engineer to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. It is submitted that apart from the patta land of Ac.7.38 cents, in Sy.No.180/2, the assigned lands to an extent of Ac.16.94 cents in Sy. Nos. 212/1B were also taken for formation of Bye Pass road after resuming them to the Government. Out of Ac.16.94 cents, the land to an extent of Ac.8.46 cents in Sy.No.212/1B, 211/1C and 210/A were assigned to late Dr. Chilakuru Narayana Rao. The Petitioners herein are claiming to be the legal heirs of the assignee, Dr. Chilakuru Narayana Rao. It is respectfully submitted that being a public servant, I am duty bound to implement the orders of this Court. I have great respect to this Court and to the Orders passed by this Court. Immediately after receipt of requisition from the Executive Engineer, Land Acquisition Proceedings will be initiated and compensation will be paid to the Petitioners as per the directions of this Court. I hereby tender unconditional apology to this Court for the delay in complying with the orders of this Court and I pray this Court to discharge me from the contempt proceedings and to close the Contempt case.” During the course of hearing of the above contempt case, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that respondent No.1, Issued G.O. Ms. No.12, dated 22.01.2008 for payment of compensation for the lands acquired in Sy. No. 210/1, 211/1 and 212/1 in an extent of Ac/8.46 cents of Narayanapuram Village. In view of the stand taken respondent No.2 in the counter filed in the contempt case, and issuance of the above-mentioned G.O., by respondent No.1, this Court by order dated 23.01.2008, closed the contempt case in C.C. No. 1247 of 2007. Thereafter, when the respondents instead of passing an award under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, decided to pay ex- gratia to the Petitioners, and in that connection, respondent No.2, in implementation of the orders dated 12.10.2004 of this Court in W.P. No. 15597 of 1993, addressed letter to his subordinates to pay ex- gratia of Rs.1,07,677/- to the petitioners for acquisition of the land in question, the petitioners filed the present contempt case in C.C. No. 985 of 2008, complaining non-implementation of orders of this Court in W.P. No. 15957 of 1993. On 01.08.2008, this Court while ordering notice before admission in the contempt case and directing it to be listed after two weeks, directed the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to file counter. On 19.08.2008, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 sought two weeks time for filing counter and producing the record, and accordingly, this Court, acceding to his requested granted time and directed the matter to be listed on 02.09.2008 making it clear that if no counter is filed by then, respondent No.2 shall appear before the Court in person. Again, on 02.09.2008, at the request of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, the matter was adjourned by one week. On 09.09.2008, this Court heard the matter at length, and on that day, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 submitted that he has already advised respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to consider proposal for providing alternative land or pay reasonable compensation to the petitioner, but not as determined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in his proceedings dated 30.04.2005. He, however, sought two weeks time to come up with concrete proposals., and accordingly at his request, the matter was directed to be listed after two weeks. On 23.09.2008, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader produced a copy of the proceedings in Rc. No. G1/5381/2004, dated 16.09.2008, wherein it is stated that the respondents are willing to allot alternative land to an extent of Acs.8.46 cents in Sy. No. 41-1 of Kurugunta village of Anantapuram Mandal, in lieu of compensation, to the petitioner. Responding to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought some time to get instructions, and accordingly, at his request the matter was ordered to be listed on 21.10.2008. On 21.10.2008, this Court having noted the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, recorded the submission of the petitioner’s counsel, who submitted that the land which is sought to be allotted to the petitioner is far away and that the value of said land is only Rs.7,27,560/- whereas the value of the land acquired from the petitioner was worth Rs.5,22,68,418/-. This Court also noted the contents of the letter dated 16.09.2008 addressed by the District Collector, Anantapur, to the learned Government Pleader, wherein he had stated that the land to be allotted will be on the same terms and conditions, on which it was allotted earlier. As the stand taken by respondent Nos.2 and 4 was not in accordance with the stand taken by them earlier, this Court opining that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for admission of the contempt case, admitted the same. Pursuant to the admission of the contempt case, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 appeared and the presence of respondent No.1 was dispensed with, and respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were further directed to appear on 05.02.2009 and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, to produce the relevant record, to enable the court hear the matter finally. On the next date of adjournment i.e. on 05.02.2009, respondent No.2 did not appear and his presence was dispensed with and the matter was adjourned by three weeks. Thereafter, on 26.02.2009, the matter was adjourned by one more week. On 02.03.2009, the learned Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents and represented that they filed writ appeal against the order, non-compliance of which is alleged in the contempt case along with condone delay application and that the same was heard by a Division Bench of this Court and orders were also reserved. Considering the said submission, this Court adjourned the matter by four weeks. On 21.04.2009, at the request of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, the matter was adjourned to 28.04.2009 and on that he undertook that respondent No.4 will appear before the Court. On 28.04.2009, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, sought adjournment of the matter on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was to appear before the Court, met with an accident. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on four occasions. On 21.08.2009, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that on the advice of the learned Advocate General, a Committee consisting of Principal Secretary, R & B Department, the District Collector, Anantapur and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, is going to be constituted, which will determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner, and considering the said submission, this Court adjourned the matter by four weeks. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned three times. On 13.11.2009, this Court was pained to take note of the fact that in spite of granting several adjournments, nothing fruitful has come out, and finally granted two weeks time to submit a report and in default, ordered the respondents to appear in person on 27.11.2009. Thereafter, the matter underwent about twelve adjournments. As noted above, the present contempt case underwent several adjournments to enable the respondents to pursue the remedy of revival of the writ appeal in W.A. [SR] No. 45015 of 2006, and even though they sought to solve the problem by providing alternative land and pay compensation, the respondents have not taken any steps. This apart, as noticed above, a Division Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 16.03.2009 dismissed the condone delay application in W.A.M.P. No.477 of 2009, and consequently, while refusing to revive the orders passed in W.A. [SR] No. 45015 of 2006, dismissed the said writ appeal. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.03.2009, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.M.P. No. 477 of 2009, reads is as follows: “ We are very much aware that the State in the instant case has taken the stand that the estimate of compensation made by the subordinate revenue officials does not reflect the compensation legally payable to the Respondents. It is needless to observe that the applications are not precluded from passing an appropriate award reflecting the correct market value.” As the respondents did not assail the above order of the Division Bench in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order dated 12.10.2004, passed by this Court in W.P. No. 15957 of 1993 attained finality. During the pendency of the above contempt case, the Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 1014, Tr. & B [R.II] Department, dated 08.09.2009, constituting a Committee for negotiation to pay compensation to the petitioners. The Committee constituted instead of passing an award or negotiating with the petitioners for payment of compensation, directed payment of Rs. 2,53,520/- vide Minutes of Meeting dated 07.11.2009. The Minutes of Meeting refers to the opinion of learned Advocate General. Assailing the above decision, as noted above, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the land in question was assigned to Dr. Chilukuri Narayana Rao on 17.07.1944. There is no prohibition of alienation in the grant, and since the respondents without paying any compensation, have resumed the land in violation of the special conditions of assignment, and since in the resumption of the land, payment of compensation is subject to conditions of grant, dispossession of the petitioners by the respondents from the land in question, without initiating land acquisition proceedings and without paying any compensation, is illegal and arbitrary, and in support of this argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division v. Mekala Pandu[1]. He also relied upon the decision dated 21.10.2009 of this Court in C.A. No. 924 of 2008, to contend that assignment of 1944 is different from assignment made after 1954. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 23.06.1976 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, in O.S. No. 45 of 1976, filed by the legal heirs of Dr. Chilukuri Narayana Rao, wherein the entitlement of compensation of each sharers, is decided, contended that the petitioners, as per the said judgment and decree are entitled to 1/7th share in the compensation, and they are restricting their claim of compensation, only to the said extent and that they are not representing the cause of other sharers. Hence, he prayed that the respondents be directed to pass award and pay compensation in respect of their 1/7th share of the land in question. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that since the land in question is assigned, the assignee or his legal heirs are not entitled to payment of any compensation when it is resumed to the government, and therefore, the respondents have not paid any compensation to the petitioners, and they are only entitled to payment of ex gratia. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the land in question was assigned to Dr. Chilkuri Narayana Rao, and that it was resumed by the Government for the purpose of National Highway No. 7 and that no compensation was paid to the petitioners, who are legal heirs of the original assignee. Though the respondents contend that while acquiring or resuming the assigned land, no compensation need be paid to the assignees and the assignees are only entitled to payment of ex gratia, the fact remains, in Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division v. Mekala Pandu, the learned Advocate General, representing the Government, submitted that in case of resumption of the land by the Government for a public purpose under the terms of the grant no compensation is liable to be paid except in accordance with the terms of the Grant itself. Admittedly, the land assigned to Dr. Chilkuri Narayana Rao, under the grant, contains the following special conditions: 1. The only condition in assignment is that the land shall not be transferred to any person other than a British Subject. 2. Till the assignment is made absolute by the Government, the Government have liberty to take the land back. 3. In case of taking back the land, the Sale Price or equivalent land in proportion will be given to the extent of land taken by the Government. 4. In case any improvement is made over the land, assigned prior to taking back of the land, the Government will not be responsible for payment of any developmental expenses. From the above conditions, it is clear that the only condition that restricts the transfer of land is that it shall not be transferred to any person other than a British subject. While one of the conditions of the grant clearly states that in case the government takes the land, the government shall pay the sale price to the assignee or give in equivalent land in proportion to the extent of land taken over. Thus, it is clear that the assignment of the land made in favour of the petitioner, is in the nature of conferring permanent ownership, including alienation, and that being so, when the government resumes the land, the petitioners are entitled, to payment of compensation. This Court, in C.A. No. 924 of 2008 in C.P. Nos. 10 to 16 of 1999, considered the question as to what would be the character and status of the lands assigned to the original assignees during 1939 and 1942 and alienated by the original assignee prior to A.P. (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended by Act No. 8 of 2007, came into force, in that whether they continue to be assigned lands or lose the character of assigned lands, and whether the Sub Registrar, Madanapalle, was not justified in refusing to register the document, executed by the Official Liquidator, in favour of the highest purchaser, on the ground that the lands covered by the sale deed, are assigned lands. The facts in the said case, run thus: M/s. Commercial Benefit Corporation, which owned several assets, including landed properties in Basinikonda village, Madanapalle, by order dated 02.09.2002, was ordered to be wound up by this Court. The Official Liquidator, who was appointed as Liquidator of the said company, was permitted to sell the properties of the company. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator, had put the properties to public auction. In the said auction, one Sri. V. Manohar, stood as highest bidder, in respect of the landed property, and the Official Liquidator, executed sale deeds in favour of the highest bidder. When the documents were presented for registration, the Sub Registrar, Madanapalle, refused to register the same on the ground that the lands are assigned land. Questioning the said action of the Sub Registrar, Madanapalle, the Official Liquidator, representing M/s. Commercial Benefit Corporation, filed the above company, which was contested by the Revenue Department. This Court, having considered the rival contentions and having noted the facts of the case, by order dated 21.10.2009, found that even though the lands were categorized as assigned lands in the year 1929 and were assigned to landless poor persons between the years 1932 and 1942, the fact remains, the conditions of assignment made in favour of the original assignees did not contain any condition prohibiting the alienation of the land either by the original assignees or their legal heirs, and further considering the fact that the original assignees/legal heirs of the original assignees, alienated the lands assigned to them, in favour of third parties, and thereafter, several sale transactions took place, and ultimately, in the year 1992, the company in liquidation purchased the same from their vendors, and in the absence of any objection taken by the revenue officials with regard to alienation/transfer of land made earlier, held that the Sub Registrar, Madanapalle was not justified in registering the documents presented by the Official Liquidator for registration, on the ground that the land sold, is assigned land. This Court, further while observing that the assignment made after