HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.21992 of 2002 Dated: 17-02-2011 Between: m.Venkatesham & others …Petitioners AND The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.21992 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioners, who are claiming to be assignees of various extents of land in Sy.No.542 of Kolthur Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District filed this writ petition questioning the notice, dated 26.2.2002 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, which was affixed to the M.P.D.O. office and also published in the newspapers informing the villagers of Kolthur that the land in Sy.No.542 of Kolthur Village belongs to the Government, admeasuring Ac.297 and that the Government have decided to give the above land to A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, and that whoever obtained Laoni pattas in the above survey number can file their objections within fifteen days from the date of publication of notice in the office of Mandal Revenue, Shameerpet, otherwise as per the decision of Government, further action will be taken. According to the petitioners, no violations have been notified in the impugned notice except stating that the Government required the assigned lands for allotment of the same to the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. The petitioners, who are all assignees, submitted representation to the District Collector on 1.10.2002 as well as the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal to consider all their objections and to pay the compensation, if the Government required the land. According to the petitioners, without paying the compensation to the petitioners, allotting their assigned land to the fifth respondent is arbitrary and illegal. While admitting the writ petition, after recording the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment that out of 27 petitioners, only 18 are assignees and remaining 9 viz., petitioner Nos.2,3,9,11,14,16,22,23 and 27 are not assignees and that the possession of the land has already been taken on 21.8.2002 and handed over to the fifth respondent, this Court observed that no direction as regards the possession can be granted, but however, it was directed that such of the petitioners who are assignees shall be entitled to and paid exgratia in accordance with the relevant orders in vogue. Learned counsel for the petitioners now submits that all the petitioners were paid compensation for the lands resumed from them for the public purpose, except the petitioner Nos.3 and 9. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.27 was paid compensation only to the extent of Ac.1.00, whereas he was assigned Ac.1.20 gts. of land on 28.9.1988 and therefore, he is entitled to the compensation for the balance of Ac.0.20 gts. of land. This Court in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and others vs. Mekala Pandu and others (2004 (2) ALD 451 (L.B.)) laid down the guidelines for payment of the compensation to the assignees when the land was resumed for the public purpose. In view of the same, on petitioners establishing the assignment in their favour by filing pattas granted in their favour, the respondents are directed to consider the claim in whose favour the compensation has not been granted and decide their claims for payment of compensation to the extent of the lands assigned in their favour in the light of the guidelines issued by this Court in the above decision. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2011 Tsr.