Order The petitioners were assigned various extents of land in Sy.No.18 of Ravirala Village of Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, at different points of time. The total extent assigned to them is said to be Ac.65.35 guntas. It is stated that an extent of Ac.23.17 guntas was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Outer Ring Road, and that compensation in the form of ex gratia was paid to the pattadars. 2. The petitioners contend that when the authorities of the Revenue Department have tried to forcibly dispossess them from the remaining land, in their possession, by destroying the properties, etc., they filed W.P.No.27233 of 2008 before this Court. It is in the course of hearing of the writ petition, that the petitioners were informed that their lands were resumed, through proceedings dated 18-03-2008. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the petitioners filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority, and that the appeal was heard on 22-08-2009. 3. During the pendency of the appeal preferred by the petitioners, against the orders of resumption, the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, issued show cause notices dated 05-09-2009 to the petitioners, stating that the Government has decided to resume the land by paying ex gratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23-12-1993. The petitioners submitted their reply and they initially claimed ex gratia @ Rs.72 lakhs per acre and thereafter, they revised it to Rs.27.50 lakhs, per acre. In the meanwhile, the Appellate Authority i.e. the Joint Collector passed the orders dated 24-10-2009, confirming the orders of resumption. The petitioners filed W.P.No.24506 of 2009, challenging the same. 4. It is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy, the 3rd respondent, issued proceedings dated 24-10-2009, fixing the ex gratia for the lands of the petitioners @ Rs.6 lakhs per acre. Another grievance of the petitioners is that the extent held by them was substantially reduced. The petitioners challenge the proceedings dated 24-10-2009. 5. Heard Sri M. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. The respondents initiated proceedings for resumption of the lands assigned to the petitioners. However, even while the appeal against the order of resumption was pending, the Government came forward with an offer to pay ex gratia to the petitioners, in terms of the Government Order. With that, the proceedings of resumption become redundant. 6. The respondents initiated proceedings for resumption of the lands assigned to the petitioners. However, even while the appeal against the order of resumption was pending, the Government came forward with an offer to pay ex gratia to the petitioners, in terms of the Government Order. With that, the proceedings of resumption become redundant. Hence, the W.P.No.24506 of 2009, filed by the petitioners, has become infructuous, and it is accordingly dismissed. 7. The respondents acknowledged the entitlement of the petitioners to be paid the ex gratia. Some uncertainty prevailed about the quantum of ex gratia, that is to be paid to an assignee, in the event of the land being resumed for a public purpose. This Court took the view that the ex gratia must be equivalent to the market value. Taking the same into account, the Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23-12-1993. It was clearly mentioned that the parameters, that are relevant under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), shall be applied, in determining the ex gratia. Payment of 30% of solatium was also provided for. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 24-10-2009, it does not appear that the 3rd respondent has taken these aspects into account. He has simply referred to some vague discussion, which is said to have taken place at a Gramasabha. For all practical purposes, the 3rd respondent was expected to conduct enquiry, as though it is an award, under Section 11 of the Act. The figures arrived at by him do not have any legal basis at all. There is some dispute as to the extent also. 9. Hence, W.P.No.14271 of 2010 is allowed, and the impugned order dated 24-10-2009 is set aside. The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy, the 3rd respondent herein, is directed to determine the ex gratia payable to the petitioners, strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23-12-1993. He shall also examine the claims of the petitioners, as to the extent of land, for which the ex gratia is to be paid. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a coy of this order. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.