THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1075 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) The Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 17.1.2007 in Writ Petition No. 6388 of 1998 whereby the learned Judge directed the appellants to consider the request of respondent No.1- writ petitioner for payment of ex-gratia towards the damage to his property. The learned Govt. Pleader for Municipal Administration submitted that during the pendency of this Writ Appeal, the appellants have already considered and rejected the claim of respondent No.1. He, however, submitted that the observations of the learned Judge in the order that the G.O.Ms.No. 70 dated 22.6.1996 applies to the case of the respondent No.1 is not correct. We have carefully read the order of the learned Judge and in our understanding, the learned Judge has not held that G.O.Ms.No. 70 dated 22.6.1996 applies to the case of the respondent No.1. This view of ours derives support from the last sentence of the order of the learned Judge which reads as under: “It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the entitlement of the petitioner or with regard to quantum of compensation and it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on merits” The very fact that the learned Judge has left it open to the appellants to decide the claim of the respondent No.1 itself shows that no findings have been rendered on the applicability or otherwise of G.O.Ms.No. 70 to the case of respondent No.1. Subject to the above clarifications, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _______________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3.2.2009 CHV