THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21429 of 2011 Dated 29th November, 2011 Between: Ch.Limbadri …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms.B.Geeta For Sri V.Mallik Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri B.Arun Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation (ex gratia) as per G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993, in respect of Ac.0.08½ guntas of land in Survey Nos.221/1, 3 to 6 of Mamidipally Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. The above-mentioned extent of land was utilised for widening NH-7. The petitioner made a claim for payment of compensation on the ground that he holds an assignment. A report was called for by respondent No.3 from respondent No.4, who accordingly submitted a report, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has purchased the assigned land from the original assignee, that proceedings were initiated for resumption of land under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and that the land was resumed from the original assignee. It is further reported that as the petitioner was found to be landless poor person and eligible for allotment of the land, the same was assigned in his favour. Placing reliance on the said report, respondent No.3 addressed letter, dated 07.04.2011, to respondent No.2, for sanctioning ex gratia amount of Rs.7,76,451/- and issue DDs for Rs.6,96,477/- in favour of the petitioner and Rs.79,974/- towards income-tax in favour of respondent No.3. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents in paying ex gratia amount as recommended by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.2 alone filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that as the petitioner is not the original assignee and that he is only a subsequent purchaser, he is not entitled to payment of compensation. From the letter addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, it is clearly evident that after resumption of the assigned land from the original assignee, the same was re-assigned to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is not disputing the contents of this letter, even though he has claimed that after the said letter of respondent No.3, he has addressed letter, dated 09.06.2011, making it clear that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation as he is not the original allotee of the assigned land and that he is only a subsequent purchaser. This stand taken by respondent No.2 cannot be sustained because the subsequent assignee is as much entitled to payment of ex gratia as the original assignee was. Had assignment not been made in favour of the petitioner, he would not have been entitled to ex gratia of the assigned land. The irregularity of purchasing an assigned land got obliterated in view of the assignment made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, for all purposes, the petitioner has become the assignee of the land in question. In this view of the mater, there is no justification for respondent No.2 to deny ex gratia to the petitioner on the shady ground that he is the purchaser of the assigned land, ignoring the fact of subsequent assignment made in his favour. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay ex gratia in terms of the latter’s letter, dated 07.04.2011, addressed to respondent No.2, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26082 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th November, 2011 VGB