IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26712 of 2008 Between: 1 P. Abdul Jameel S/o. Late Sahib Peer R/o. Kalakada Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 P. Kaleemullah S/o. Late Mohd. Shariif R/o. Kalakada Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 P. Abdul Arab S/o. Late Abdul Salam R/o. Kalakada Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 3 Tahasildar, Kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd respondent dated 31.08.2008 made in ROC.No.A/210/08 and his action in seeking to take over the lands owned and possessed by us in Survey Nos.1137 and 1138 admeasuring Ac.7.56 cents situated at Kalakada Village & Mandal, Chittoor District under the guise of acquiring for Indiramma House Sites as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, non-application of mind to the relevant material available on record, violation of the procedure of the contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act apart from being violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said orders and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI K.A.RAWOOF Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26712 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners were statedly absolute owners of land admeasuring Acs.7.56 in survey Nos.1137 and 1138 situated at Kalakada Village and Mandal in Chittoor District. They allege that the said land has been purchased under registered sale deeds by grandfather of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, which was subsequently given to petitioners under Will dated 24.09.1973. They also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds. Third respondent issued a notice on 25.01.2008 to show cause as to why land should not be resumed for providing house sites. Petitioners submitted explanation. After considering the same, impugned order is passed on 31.08.2008 resuming the land and further ordering that the petitioners would be entitled for ex gratia amount. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that even when land is resumed, petitioners are entitled for compensation in accordance with principles adumbrated in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This is not seriously disputed nor denied. Larger Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v Mekala Pandu[1] has considered this aspect of the matter and laid down as under. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on part with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in case where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land. In view of settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to accept the writ petition. Petitioners are given liberty to prefer an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is also given to petitioners to make appropriate applications to District Collector, Chittoor, claiming compensation in accordance with principles laid down in Mekala Pandu (supra). As and when such applications are made, District Collector shall conduct enquiry and pass necessary orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such applications. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.12.2008 vs To 1 The District Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 3 Tahasildar, Kalakada Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 2CCs to G.P for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)