THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :1049 of 2008 DATED:24-01-2008 BETWEEN: Vempalli Kasim Saheb. ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Kadapa District & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders, dated 24-11-2007, vide D.Dis.(E2) 3276/2007 passed by the 1st respondent and set aside the same. 3. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that he is the son of one late Papa Saheb who was the original assignee of the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.846/1, situated at C.K.Dinne village and mandal Kadapa District vide DKT No.15/1411, dated 16-02-2006. It is the case of the 2nd petitioner that his mother-Gundluru Peeramma was assigned an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.No.846/2 and Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.No.791/2 of C.K.Dinne village, Kadapa District vide DKT No.16/1411, dated 16-02-2002. The said land was resumed by the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, C.K.Dinne village vide proceedings No.B.108/2004, dated 30-06-2004, on the ground that the said land is required for the public purpose i.e., for assignment of house sites to the landless poor and also it is stated that the said land was not developed and no crop was raised and since the land is needed for grant of house sites for the landless poor, the same was resumed to the Government. Against the said resumption orders, petitioners filed appeals before the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, and the 2nd respondent confirmed the said orders. As against the said orders, petitioners filed revision before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector and the revisional authority vide order, dated 24-11-2007, in D.Dis (E2) 3276/2007 disposed of the revision upholding the resumption orders holding that the petitioners are entitled for payment of exgratia i.e., market value payable under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) including the value of the borewell and 30% solatium on market value in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue (Assgn.I) Department, dated 23-12-1993. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the resumption order itself is illegal and there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment and as per the terms and conditions of the assignment the land can be developed within three years and for non-development of the land within three years, the land cannot be resumed. 5. There is no dispute that there cannot be any violation of the terms and conditions. It cannot be said that there is a violation if the land is not developed within three years but the land is resumed on the ground that the land is required for allotting house sites to the landless poor. Therefore, whether any conditions are violated or not it is always open for the Government to resume the land for public purpose but they can do so only subject to payment of the exgratia as per the aforesaid G.O. Apart from the compensation petitioners are also entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the Act, that is to say, Solatium, additional compensation, and interest as held by this Court in P.MALLAIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P., REP., BY SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER[1]. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent rightly held that the petitioners are entitled for the market value of the land payable under Section 23(1) of the Act. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the Act, that is to say Solatium, additional compensation, and interest in addition to exgratia payable by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue (Assgn.I) Department, dated 23-12-1993. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 24th January, 2008. Tsy [1] 2006(2) ALT 742