THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.No.1674 of 2008 Between: Battula Gangulappa. .. PETITIONER and The District Collector and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.No.1674 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that his father was assigned the land admeasuring Ac.0-67 cents in Sy.No.408/13 and his mother was assigned the lands admeasuring Ac.0-15 cents and Ac.1-33 cents in Sy.Nos.408/14 and 408/15 respectively situated at Bhimaganipalli Revenue Village, Punganur, Chittoor District. After the death of his father and mother, the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands. While so, the lands admeasuring Ac.0-15 cents and Ac.1-33 cents in Sy.Nos.408/14 and 408/15, which are assigned in favour of the mother of the petitioner, are sought to be resumed on the ground that the said lands are required for public purpose for allotting house sites to the landless poor persons. Accordingly, show-cause notice, dated 24-03-2007, has been issued to the petitioner asking as to why the said lands shall not be resumed. It is stated that the petitioner filed explanation to the said show-cause notice. But, the 3rd respondent, without considering the said explanation, passed the impugned order for resuming the lands in question. It is not in dispute that the said lands are assigned for agricultural purpose in view of the fact that the mother of the petitioner is a landless poor person. As per the conditions of the assignment patta, the assigned lands can be resumed for the public purpose. Further, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23-12-1993 for payment of ex-gratia/compensation in respect of resuming assigned lands for public purpose. A larger bench of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chavella Division, Domalguda, Hyderabad Vs. Mekala Pandu[1] held that the assignees are entitled for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) basing on the market value. But, the said judgment of this court was appealed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stayed payment of compensation on the market value. As the Supreme Court stayed payment of compensation on the market value, this court disposed of number of writ petitions, directing the respondents to pay compensation as per the provisions of the Act including solatium, additional compensation and interest. As things stood as on today, the petitioner is not entitled for payment of compensation as per the market value except compensation as per the provisions of the Act including solatium, additional compensation and interest. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere or dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question without paying compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act including solatium, additional compensation and interest. No costs. ___________ 07-02-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)