Judgment :- 1. The petitioners challenge the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.407, Revenue Department dated 24.07.2000 and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.8710/2002 Aa 6 dated 04.03.2005. 2. Upon violation of condition that the assignee has effected sale of the property assigned in his favour to the petitioners herein, the original assignment came to be cancelled. Thereafter, upon the request of the petitioners seeking the assignment of the said land which was in their possession and upon which they have carried out development activities, a due enquiry was held and upon finding that there was no objection nor any impediment to the grant of assignment in favour of the petitioners, orders were passed in G.O.Ms.No.407 Revenue Department dated 24.07.2000. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of assignment in so far as the fixation of value of land is concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the Writ Petition having arisen owing to fixation of value of land assigned to the petitioners at a higher rate than that then existent, the petitioners, consequent to the huge escalation of prices of land, are willing to adhere and effect payment of the costs as fixed under the impugned order. Learned counsel only seeks the relief of being granted sometime to do so. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the Government Order informing the value of land asRs.1,13,222/-peracre came to be passed in the year 2000. The same was intimated to the petitioners under communication of the fourth respondent dated 24.08.2000. Despite the same, the petitioners have failed to effect payment in keeping with the demand. Learned Special Government Pleader would also submit that in passing the order of assignment there was no concluded contract between Government and the petitioners, in as much as no payment of price as demanded had been made by the petitioners. Placing reliance on the counter, he further submitted that the annual increase of 12% in price of land was to be taken into account and if so done, it would be found that the price payable by the petitioners would be a sum of Rs.2,50,294/-. Therefore, the present undertaking of the petitioners to effect payment of price as demanded in the Government Order would not serve any purpose. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. Therefore, the present undertaking of the petitioners to effect payment of price as demanded in the Government Order would not serve any purpose. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. This Court finds that the contention of 12% annual increase in the price of land informed in the counter, is based on an erroneous reading of the Government Order. The Government Order informs that the price per acre was Rs.40,296/- in the year 1996. Taking into consideration the increase in the price between 1996 and 1999 and placing the same at a total extent of 12%, the Government Order informs the price then payable by the petitioners as Rs.56,611/-per acre. Therefore, the contention that there is a 12% annual increase in price of land is incorrect. Further, having arrived at the price of Rs.56,611/- per acre, this Court fails to see how a demand for twice the value could have been made by way of the Government Order. Grant of assignment is not to be seen as an act of charity nor can it be used as a measure of imposition of penalty. The demand upon the petitioners viz., that they pay twice the value of land then arrived at seems to be in the nature of penalty since they have obtained possession of the land from the original assignee, who wrongly has effected sale of the same to them. There is no dispute over the fact that the petitioners also were found to be land less labourers and that they were eligible for assignment of land in their favour. While so, it would be highly unbecoming to impose a penalty upon them towards their continuing in possession of land. 7. One other contention of the learned Special Government Pleader was that since the G.O.Ms.No.407, Revenue Department dated 24.07.2000, stood served upon the petitioners through the officers of the fourth respondent and the petitioners had not challenged the same but had only done so pursuant to issue of notice dated 04.03.2005, the petitioners were guilty of laches. This Court is unable to accept such contention since there is no explanation on the side of the respondents as to why they have not acted any further in the matter after passing an Order in the year 2000,towards cancellation of the assignment. This Court is unable to accept such contention since there is no explanation on the side of the respondents as to why they have not acted any further in the matter after passing an Order in the year 2000,towards cancellation of the assignment. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents have even as late as on 04.03.2005 demanded payment of the price as fixed in the Government Order. Once this Court finds that the demand of the respondents even in the year 2005 was only for payment of the price as fixed in G.O.Ms.No.407, Revenue Department dated 24.07.2000 and the petitioner though initially has challenged the samenow is willing to effect payment as demanded in view of the admitted steep escalation of price, demands of justice and fair play would be met if the revenue accepts the demand of price as fixed in G.O.Ms.No.407, Revenue Department dated 24.07.2000 and consequently issues orders of assignment in favour of the petitioners. It is represented that in keeping with interim orders of this Court dated 20.04.2005, each of the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.56,611/- per acre with the fourth respondent. 8. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court directs the petitioners to remit the balance payable by them of the value of the land as fixed under the impugned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.