IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9362 of 2005 Between: T.S. Vijaya Kumar & another. … Petitioners AND State of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N. Vijay Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9362 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation as per market value for resuming the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents comprised in Sy.No.542/1 of Kolathur Village, Medchal Taluk, Hyderabad District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The father of the petitioners, who was an Ex-servicemen, was assigned with the abovementioned land under LAONI Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 26.07.1958 read with G.O.Ms.No.1724 dated 26.03.1959. It appears that the original assignee died and the petitioners admittedly are his sons. The said land was resumed in the year 1999 by the State Government and allotted for the purpose of ICICI Knowledge Park. The petitioners, therefore, claimed compensation as per the market value in terms of the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad vs. M. Pandu[1]. No counter-affidavit is filed denying the allegations contained in the affidavit. Therefore, the averments contained in the affidavit deserve to be accepted. As regards the relief to be granted to the petitioners, undoubtedly, in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (1 supra) a Bench of Seven Judges of this Court, while overruling the judgment of a Five Judge Bench in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bondapalli Sanyasi and others[2] held that the assignees are entitled to compensation on par with the owners of private pattadars if their properties are acquired for a public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this judgment of the Seven Judge Bench is stayed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, as on today, the judgment in Bondapalli Sanyasi (2 supra) holds the field. According to this Judgment and G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 unless the assigned land is notified for acquisition, the assignee is not entitled to payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in case of acquisition of such land, the assignee is entitled to payment of compensation equal to the market value of the property without the additional benefits under the provisions of the Act. Hence, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the said judgment. The respondents shall pay compensation to the petitioners as per the said judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to claim the additional compensation in terms of the judgment in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (1 supra) if the Supreme Court affirms the view taken in the said judgment. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.12272 of 2005 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.07.2008 ES [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 [2] 2002 (2) ALD 1 (LB)