JUDGMENT (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the resumption of the lands of the Petitioners by the 1st and 4th Respondents without granting Ex-gratia/compensation to them, as illegal unlawful and un-constitutional in the circumstances it is further prayed that the Respondents No.1 & 2 be directed to pay the Ex-gratia compensation at the prevailing market rate of Rs.29 lakhs per Acre to the Petitioners together with interest @ 12% per annum till realization of the compensation amount, as they are eligible to the same. WPMP No.40834 of 2011: Petition under Section 151 of CPC Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to pay half of the Ex-gratia as Interim compensation @ present market value i.e., Rs.29 lakhs per Acre for our survival. Gram Swarajya Cooperative Joint Farming Society Limited was formed with 22 members, including the petitioners herein, in the year 1975, in Kurnool District. All the members were assigned the Government land of 5 acres each, in Sy.Nos.277, 331/1, 331/2, 343 and 344 of B. Thandrapadu Village, which is in the outskirts of Kurnool town. The petitioners state that they dug wells and brought the lands under cultivation by incurring huge expenditure. It is stated that when the then Tahsildar, Kurnool, the 4th respondent herein cancelled the assignments through orders dated 07-10-1988, alleging that the lands were not brought under cultivation, appeals were filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, the 3rd respondent, and that they were allowed, through orders dated 04-12-1988. Revisions filed by the 4th respondent before the District Collector, the 2nd respondent, are said to have been rejected, on finding that the lands were brought under cultivation, and that the inspection was made, by the Tahasildar, almost in the mid-summer. The petitioners state that the assignment was almost in the form of recognition, of their services to the Khadi Grama Swarajya Sangham since they were paid a meager salary of Rs.100/- per month. Recently, the lands of the petitioners were taken over by the respondents for the purpose of constructing houses under Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme. The petitioners, however, were not paid any ex gratia. Recently, the lands of the petitioners were taken over by the respondents for the purpose of constructing houses under Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme. The petitioners, however, were not paid any ex gratia. They made several representations to the respondents. Since nothing was forthcoming, they approached this Court by filing the writ petition. They seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the resumption of their lands, by the respondents, without praying ex gratia, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to direct the respondents to pay them the ex gratia, at the prevailing market value. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit, on behalf of himself and respondents 2 and 3. He states that the orders of assignment issued in favour of the petitioners were cancelled vide proceedings dated 31-08-1988, on the ground that they did not bring the lands under cultivation. It is also stated that though show cause notices were issued, none of the petitioners have responded. The Collector is said to have submitted proposals on 26-11-2008, for allotting the land to the Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Project. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioners for payment of ex gratia is untenable. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients have not only cultivated the land, but also developed it, and dug wells by incurring huge expenditure. He contends that when the 4th respondent issued orders of resumption in the year 1988, alleging that the land was not under cultivation, the appellate authority, the 3rd respondent recorded a clear finding to the effect that the lands were brought under cultivation, and the orders, of resumption were set aside. Learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent has also made extensive observations, in the revision indicating the nature of enjoyment of the land. He contends that the 4th respondent has passed the alleged orders of resumption in utter violation of law, and with the sole objective of making available the land, for housing scheme. He submits that though the 2nd respondent himself observed earlier, that the petitioners re residents of Kurnool town, which is in the immediate neighbourhood of the lands, the notice as well as the proceedings were not served, with a malicious intention. He submits that though the 2nd respondent himself observed earlier, that the petitioners re residents of Kurnool town, which is in the immediate neighbourhood of the lands, the notice as well as the proceedings were not served, with a malicious intention. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that the obligation to pay ex gratia to the petitioners would arise, only when the orders of assignment are in force, by the time the land is resumed. He contends that the orders of assignment were cancelled, much before the land was put to a different use, and that the petitioners did not choose to question the orders of cancellation of assignment. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioners were assigned five acres land each, in Sy.Nos.277, 331/1, 331/2, 343 and 344 of B. Thandrapadu Village, on account of their being the employees of Khadi Grama Swarajya Sangham. The assignment was typical in nature. A society was formed, and collective farming was required to be undertaken. The petitioners state that they have brought the land under cultivation, collectively, by raising loans and incurring huge expenditure, etc. 12 years after the assignments were made, the 4th respondent passed orders of resumption in the year 1988, alleging that the petitioners did not bring the lands under cultivation. Appeals were preferred by all the assignees before the 3rd respondent. He allowed the appeals by observing that the allegation made by the 4th respondent, that the petitioners did not bring the land under cultivation, is not correct. The vindictiveness on the part of the then Tahsildar, the 4th respondent, is evident from the fact that he preferred revisions before the Collector, as though he is a rival contender. In all fairness, the District Collector, the 2nd respondent, examined the matter in detail and made specific observations to the effect that the petitioners dug wells with their expenditure, brought the land under cultivation, and that the orders of resumption were not legal. It is also evident from the record that the 4th respondent visited the land in the month of May, where no crop would be available, on any land, whatever. The matter remained as such, for two decades. It is also evident from the record that the 4th respondent visited the land in the month of May, where no crop would be available, on any land, whatever. The matter remained as such, for two decades. It is a matter of common knowledge that since past one decade, a phenomenal increase in demand for land has taken place, on account of some populistic and some lopsided schemes, launched by the Government. Since the land cannot be multiplied, the officials of the Government, particularly in the Revenue Department, have crossed all barriers of propriety, and invented methods, to appropriate as much land as possible from the citizens. Assignments, and in some cases, revenue sales, that were made even during alien regimes were cancelled, with the sole objective of making the land available for affluent organization, or for launching the populistic schemes. The case on hand depicts the levels, to which the authorities have stooped down. Way back in the year 1990, the District Collector, the 2nd respondent made a clear observation to the effect that the petitioners and the other assignees of the land in the village are residents of Kurnool, which is in the immediate neighbourhood, and the allegation that they are not residents of the village is not correct. About two decades thereafter, the 4th respondent has chosen to display the so-called show cause notices on the land, straightaway, and not even an effort was made, to locate the assignees. A small effort by the 4th respondent to verify the record of the year 1988, would have revealed the addresses of the petitioners and other assignees. The orders of resumption were passed in such a way that the officer did not even put the date upon them, and that they were passed in a most arbitrary, illegal and highhanded manner. It is true that the orders of resumption are not challenged in the writ petition. At a time when every effort is being made to take justice to the door steps of the aggrieved persons, the petitioners cannot be denied the relief on hyper-technicalities. The entire record was produced before this Court, and the respondents do not deny that the orders are not only violative of principles of natural justice, but are arbitrary on the face of it. The entire record was produced before this Court, and the respondents do not deny that the orders are not only violative of principles of natural justice, but are arbitrary on the face of it. The averments in the counter-affidavit disclose that the resumption was resorted to only to make the land available for the housing project. The sequence of events clearly supports this. Every possible requirement under law, has been violated. The whole exercise was undertaken only to deny the ex gratia to the petitioners. In case the Government wanted the land for any genuine purpose, it could have certainly taken over the land by paying ex gratia. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to pay ex gratia for the land to the petitioners, at the market value, that prevailed on the date of resumption, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of resumption, till the date of payment. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.