IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6104 of 2008 Between: Polimaina Ramulu S/o.Ramaiah R/o.Indukuru(V) Veerappanayunipalli(M) Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector Kadapa Kadapa District. 2 The Special Collector(LA) G.N.S.S Kadapa District. 3 The Special Deputy Collector(LA) G.N.S.S Unit-II Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may 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 to the petitioner land in Sy.Nos.326 to an extent of Ac 6.56 cents situated in Indukur (V) V.N.pally (M) Kadapa District on the premise that the land is assigned land even though the petitioner is owner/pattadar of the said land even otherwise also petitioner is entitled to full compensation as per L.A Act in view of the Larger Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Mekala Pandu cause reported in 2004 (2) ALT 546 as illegal arbitrary and in violative 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 Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.6104 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is stated to be the owner and pattadar of the land in Sy.No.326 admeasuring Acs.6.56 cents situated at Indukur village of Veerappanayunipalli Mandal in Kadapa District, having purchased the same from one Chavva Gangi Reddy under registered sale deed dated 16.01.1975. The Government proposed to acquire certain lands, including the land of the petitioner, for Sarvajaja Sagar project under G.N.S.S. Project, Kadapa. He alleges that the respondents, treating his land as assigned, are proposing to pay exgratia to him, without paying compensation on par with other landowners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). He further alleges that even if his land is treated as an assigned one, he is entitled to compensation on par with other landowners, in view of the judgment of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v. Mekala Pandu[1]. Therefore, he filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay full compensation for his land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader 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, petitioner is 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner can enforce his 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 petitioner, he can accept the same by reserving his 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 petitioner, 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. __________ 24.03.2008 sh ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Dist Collector Kadapa Kadapa District. 2 The Special Collector(LA) G.N.S.S Kadapa District. 3 The Special Deputy Collector(LA) G.N.S.S Unit-II Kadapa District. 4 2CCs to 5 2CD copies [1] 2004(2) ald 451 (LB)S