IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11866 of 2004 Between: Smt. Penagaluru Leelavathamma, W/o. Late P. Subbarami Reddy, R/o. Marlapalli Village, Nayudupet Mandal, Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nellore. 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Gudur, Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11866 of 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to retransfer the land admeasuring Acs.3.90 cents in Marlapalli Village and Ac.0.75 cents in Survey No.140/6 (old Survey No.32/P) in Ayyapureddypalem Village, surrendered by the husband of the petitioner in C.C.No.502/SPT/75 or in the alternative, direct the respondents to transfer the Government land in Survey No.39-1-B in Thummur Village, Naidupet Mandal, to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The claim of the petitioner is that by virtue of the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nellore (“the Tribunal” for brevity), on 01.08.1979, the Tribunal predetermined the standard holding of the petitioner’s family and held that they did not hold the land in excess of the ceiling limit by the order dated 26.10.1979. But, by that time, the earlier order, whereby the petitioner’s family was held to be holding lands in excess of their ceiling limit was already implemented and an extent of Acs.6.64 cents in Ayyapureddypalem Village certain lands of the petitioner were already taken over by the Government and assigned to third parties. Out of the said lands so assigned, possession of an extent of Acs.6.64 cents in Ayyapureddypalem Village was taken back from the beneﬁciaries and handed over to the petitioner’s family on 21.04.1998. As the remaining Acs.4.65 cents could not be given back to the petitioner’s family, as the same was found under active cultivation of the families belonging to the Scheduled Castes, an option was exercised under Rule 10 (a) (4) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 to pay the amounts equal to the amounts as determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (c) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act, 1977 in lieu of transferring the land. Since, neither the land was resumed nor such compensation was paid, this Court had taken serious notice of the lapse on the part of the respondents by its order dated 17.06.2008 and granted two weeks time to ﬁle counter aﬃdavit as to whether any decision was taken for compensating the petitioner for the injury she suffered. Today, at the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed before me G.O.Rt.No.1389 Revenue (Land Reforms) Department dated 01.07.2008 wherein, it is stated that having regard to the order dated 17.06.2008 passed by this Court, the Government sanctioned extraordinary and ex-gratia compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards the delay in payment of compensation to the petitioner, which is in addition to the compensation of Rs.28,571/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand ﬁve hundred and seventy one only) sanctioned vide proceedings dated 10.06.2008 passed by the Sub-Collector, Gudur, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner lamented that though the family of the petitioner was entitled to the return of the lands or payment of compensation in lieu thereof as far back as the year 1978, the respondents have not done either of the two things as a result of which, the petitioner and her family was deprived of the use of the lands and the income there from. He, therefore, submitted that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) sanctioned by the State Government is wholly inadequate. I see force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the respondents have returned the possession of the land of Acs.4.65 cents, the family of the petitioner would surely have earned regular income from the lands. The respondents cannot deprive the petitioner and her family of the income, which they would have reasonably derived from the use of the land. But, however, since the State Government has decided to award an extraordinary and ex-gratia compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), I do not see any reason to deny this amount by the petitioner for the time being even if the petitioner is not satisﬁed with the quantum arrived at by the State Government. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay the above mentioned amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in addition to the compensation amount of Rs.28,571/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand ﬁve hundred and seventy one only) towards the value of the land within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, receipt of this amount by the petitioner shall not be treated as her accepting the quantum of compensation ﬁxed by respondent No.1 for deprival of the use of the land by the petitioner’s family from the year 1978. The sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) sanctioned by respondent No.1 shall be treated as purely ad hoc and the petitioner shall be free to approach the Civil Court to claim the compensation for the actual loss suﬀered by the petitioner and her family on account of failure of the respondents to restore the land to her. If such a suit is filed within three {3} months from today; the same shall be entertained by the competent Civil Court without raising any objections of limitation and waiver of her right in accepting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) sanctioned by the State Government towards extraordinary and ex-gratia compensation. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 4th August 2008 RRB