Judgment The 1st petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.3.20 guntas of land in survey No.300/24 of Kongarakalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the 1st petitioner has mortgaged the land with the 2nd petitioner, and due to inadvertence, a sale deed was executed. It is also stated that notwithstanding the said transaction, the 1st petitioner alone is the owner and possessor of the land. In the year 2010, the Government initiated steps to provide about 370 acres of land in survey No.300 of Kongarakalan Village, for establishing an Industrial Park and to allot the same to the Ranga Reddy District Rice Millers Association. The land that was assigned to the 1st petitioner was also part of it. Orders of resumption were passed. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 24.12.2010, for payment of ex-gratia at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs, per acre. The name of the 2nd petitioner was shown at serial No.34, and a cheque, dated 24.12.2010, was issued for a sum of Rs.22,75,000/-. The Tahasildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, the 1st respondent herein, was entrusted with the duty to handover the cheque. The 1st respondent refused to issue the cheque to any of the petitioners, and in stead, he passed an order, dated 27.02.2012, under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). It was mentioned that though the land was assigned to the 1st petitioner, local enquiry revealed that it was alienated and the 2nd petitioner, who figured as purchaser, has also come on record. According to him, the sale in favour of the 2nd petitioner is prohibited under the Act, and thereby the land was resumed to the Government. The petitioners challenge the order, dated 27.02.2012. According to them, no notices, in Form Nos.I and II, were served upon them, and that the 1st respondent has acted in a vindictive manner with an oblique motive. They submit that when the superior authority viz., the 2nd respondent, has examined the matter, in detail, passed orders resuming the land, and issued the cheque for payment of ex-gratia, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, much less to refuse payment. They submit that apart from being illegal, the impugned proceedings constitute the act of insubordination on the part of the Officer, who issued the same. They submit that apart from being illegal, the impugned proceedings constitute the act of insubordination on the part of the Officer, who issued the same. This Court has perused the record and it required the Officer, who passed the impugned order, to file a counter-affidavit. He stated that the factum of alienation of the assigned land was noticed in the course of distribution of cheques, and accordingly the impugned order was passed. He stated that he did not inform these developments to the 2nd respondent and pleaded excuse, for various acts and omissions on his part. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner was the assignee of the land. The circumstances under which the name of the 2nd petitioner came to be incorporated in the revenue records are not clear. The land, ultimately was resumed to the Government for a public purpose. G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 directs that the assignee of a Government land must be paid ex-gratia, whenever the land is resumed by the Government for a public purpose. This Court explained in several judgments, the manner in which the ex-gratia must be arrived at. The extent that was identified for establishing the Industrial Park was phenomenal, viz., 371 acres. Out of that, 152 acres was assigned. In his proceedings, dated 24.12.2010, the 2nd respondent took note of the fact that Acs.19.00 of assigned land was resumed to the Government under the Act, on account of violation of the conditions. The land that was assigned to the 1st petitioner was not included therein. For 125 acres, the 2nd respondent issued cheques in favour of 65 persons, for payment of ex-gratia of Rs.8,12,66,250/-. The name of the 2nd petitioner was shown at serial No.34 and cheque No.112149, dated 24.12.2010 covering a sum of Rs.22,75,00,000/-, was prepared in his name. The direction issued to the 1st respondent read: “Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatam Mandal is directed to resume the entire land and hand it over to the APIIC under proper panchanama and also to disburse the ex-gratia to the beneficiaries/assignees, after satisfying himself under proper acknowledgement and report compliance along with acquittances. The 1st respondent was duty bound to implement the directions issued by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent was duty bound to implement the directions issued by the 2nd respondent. In case he found that any factual error has crept into the proceedings, he ought to have simply brought it to the notice of the 2nd respondent and awaited further action. However, he passed the impugned order, that too, without issuing notice to the petitioners, much less bringing the factum to the notice of the 2nd respondent. It is not only a case of flagrant violation of law, but also an act of insubordination. If there was no dispute between petitioners 1 and 2, and the cheque was prepared after verification of the records, it was not at all open to the 1st respondent to deny the payment that was directed by the 2nd respondent. Further, the question of passing an order under the Act, after the land was resumed to the Government for a public purpose, and ex-gratia was awarded; does not arise. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly taking into account the proceedings issued by him, on 24.12.2010. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.