THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.19169 and 20157 of 2006 Dated 26th July, 2011 Between: Palle Vijayalakshmi …Petitioner (W.P.No.19169 of 2006) And The Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents (W.P.No.19169 of 2006) Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Y.Venkata Satyam Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Irrigation & CAD Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. These two writ petitions pertain to the claim of the petitioners for payment of 25% additional amount and 12% interest in respect of the structures constructed over the assigned lands. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were paid compensation towards the value of the structures in terms of G.O.Ms.No.192, dated 02.12.1998, r/w G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. However, the petitioners’ claim for the additional amounts referred to above is based on G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 30.11.2004 and Circular, dated 24.07.2006, wherein 25% additional amount was paid to certain other persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners stand on par with the persons to whom the additional amount was paid, they are also entitled to such payments. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, after taking adjournment for ascertaining the facts, reported to the Court that payment of 25% additional amount made to others was subsequent to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 30.11.2004, and that the petitioners have received the payments much prior to issuance of the said G.O. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the said G.O., has no retrospective operation and therefore, the petitioners stand on a different footing from the persons to whom the additional amount was paid. The above submission of the learned Government Pleader is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Inasmuch as G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 30.11.2004, was issued providing for payment of additional amount after payment of ex gratia amount to the petitioners, the benefit under the said G.O., cannot be extended to them. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason for grant of relief in favour of the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that if the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and others v. Mekala Pandu[1], is upheld by the Supreme Court, the petitioners shall be entitled to approach the respondents for payment of compensation in terms of the said judgment. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petitions, the interlocutory applications, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th July, 2011 VGB [1] 2004(2) ALD 451