THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1842 OF 2008 DATED: 04-02-2008 BETWEEN Mukkera Obulamma, W/o. Venkata Ramana, R/o. D.No.10/20, Konnepalle Village, Mammillapalle Gram Panchayat, Chinthakommadinne Mandal, Kadapa District and another. …PETITIONERS AND District Collector, Kadapa and two others. …RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioners question the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa in Ref.No.E/246/06 dated 08.10.2007 in resuming the land earlier assigned in their favour of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents each in Sy.No.709/1A and 709/1B vide DKT.No.1/1404 and 2/1404 dated 29.09.2004 respectively. 2. It is not in dispute that each petitioner has been assigned the said agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents vide the aforesaid DKT pattas in 1994. It is stated that notices dated 17.09.2007 have been issued calling for objections while requesting the petitioners to appear before the Tahsildar, Chinthakommadinne Mandal to explain as to why the said lands shall not be resumed and if they prove that they are the assignees they will be paid necessary compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of the petitioners have received any such notice and without giving any notice the impugned order has been passed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the husband of the first petitioner received the notice and the second petitioner herself received the notice and that their statements also have been recorded before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the receipt of the said notice and submits that the signatures contained in the notice do not belong to the petitioners and that the statements said to have been made also do not belong to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners being illiterate, their statements have been created and made available in the file to deprive the valuable right of the petitioners. 6. Even assuming that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are true and correct, I am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot object for taking over the said assigned lands if they are required for public purpose. As per the conditions of assignment, when the assigned lands are required for public purpose, it is always open for the Government to take over the same subject to the condition that appropriate compensation is paid as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assgn.I) Department dated 23.12.1993. This Court in W.P.No.19778 of 2006 and batch dated 09.10.2006 held that the assignees are not only entitled for compensation/ex-gratia as per the G.O. and also entitled to solatium, additional compensation and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners requests that he may be permitted to question the said order before the appellate authority. That request will be considered only if the petitioners seek permission to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file an appeal. It is not open to the petitioners to get a relief of compensation in the writ petition as well as seek permission of this Court to question before the appellate authority. Therefore, the said request is rejected. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the said lands are required for public purpose and as the petitioners admittedly being assignees, the respondents are directed to pay compensation/ex-gratia as per the aforesaid G.O. and also solatium, additional compensation and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J February 4, 2008 DSK