IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9771 of 2008 Between: Gagguturu Pitchaiah S/o. Chinna Pakkeeraiah 1/1775, Sri ram Nagar, Yerramukkapalle, Kadapa. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa Dist. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapda District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kadapa Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the notification in Ref.G3/1948/2007, dated 21.3.2008 issued by th e1st respondent and published in Eenadu daily, dated 24-3-2008 resuming the land assigned in Survey no. 424/3, an extent of Ac.4.50 cents of Chinna Chowk Revenue Village, kadapa Mandal and district on the alleged ground that the same is required for providing house sites to the beneficiaries under Rajiv Swagruha /Housing Scheme, without following the due process of law as illegal, contrary to the Principles laid down in the case of LAO- cum-RDO, Chevella Domalaguda Vs. Mekala Pandu reported in 2004 (2) ALD 451 violative of principles of natural justice apart being violative of Fundamental and Constitutional Right guaranteed to under Art.13, 21 and 300-a of the Constitution of India and consequent set aside the same in so far as the lands in survey No. 424/3 an extent of Ac.4.50 cents of Chinna Chowk Revenue Village, Kadapa Mandal and district belonging to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.NO.9771 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the notification in Ref.G3/1948/2007, dated 21.3.2008 issued by the first respondent and published in Eenadu daily, dated 24.3.2008 resuming the land assigned in Survey No.424/3, an extent of Ac.4.50 cents of Chinna Chowk Revenue Village, Kadapa Mandal and District on the alleged ground that the same is required for providing house sites to the beneficiaries under Rajeev Swagruha Housing Scheme, without following the due process of law. The facts, in brief, are that an extent of land of Ac.4.50 cents in Survey No.424/3 of Chinna Chowk Revenue Village, Kadapa Mandal and District has been assigned in favour of the petitioner on 2.3.1967. The petitioner dug a bore well in the said land by taking loan from the District Co-operative Central Bank, Kadapa for Rs.1,00,000/- and planted 50 teak plants, 2 amla trees, one mango plant and one neredu tree 10 years back. The petitioner has also taken electricity service connection to the said bore well bearing No.SC 46096 and raising groundnut, paddy, sunflower and other crops. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. While so, the first respondent, namely the District Collector, Kadapa has issued the impugned notification in Ref.G3/1948/2007, dated 21.3.2008, which was published in Eenadu daily dated 24.3.2008, resuming the said land assigned in favour of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the same is required for proving house sites to the beneficiaries under Rajeev Swagruha Housing Scheme without following the due process of law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Both the counsel agree that the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in LAO- cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v. Mekala Pandu[1]. 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, the petitioner is entitled to ex gratia only. This Court in Mekala Pandu’s case (supra) held that even if the acquired land is an assigned land, the Government is liable to pay full compensation to the assignee under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the 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 ex gratia, 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 ex gratia 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). _________________ N.V.RAMANA, J. 11th June, 2008 KSR/KPR [1] 2004(2) ALD 451 (LB)