Judgment The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. It is stated that the father of the 1st petitioner entered into an agreement dated 04.11.1969, with Sri MVSVK Appa Rao, to purchase Acs.36.92 cents of land in different survey numbers of Nuzvid Village, Krishna District, and that a sale deed was registered on 19.10.1982, covering a land of Acs.11.69 cents. Sri Appa Rao held vast extent of land and he submitted declaration under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal passed an order to the effect that the declarant is liable to surrender 3.7285 standard holdings of land. The land that was alienated to the family of the petitioners was also included in the items to be surrendered. On noticing that the steps were being taken for surrender of the land, purchased by the family, the petitioners filed L.R.A.No.23 of 2005 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari District. The same was dismissed on 17.08.2006. Thereupon, the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.5083 of 2006 before this Court. An interim order was passed therein. When the revision was pending, proposals are mooted for allotment of the land in question to the IIIT College at Nuzvid. In view of the urgent need of the land, local MLA approached the petitioners and convinced them that they would be paid value for the fruit bearing trees, structures and bore-wells etc. Acting on that representation, the petitioners have withdrawn the C.R.P. The possession of the land was delivered. The application of the petitioners for payment of compensation for fruit bearing trees was processed and the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 3rd respondent, submitted proposals to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent, for approval. However, the 2nd respondent made an endorsement, dated 05.05.2011, to the effect that the petitioners are just, the only holders of agreement of sale and since their appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, they do not have any right over the surplus land, much less for any compensation. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. The petitioners submit that but for the assurance given by the MLA and officials of the Revenue Department, they would have pursued the matter in the revision, and it is not at all open for the 2nd respondent to deny the compensation. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. The petitioners submit that but for the assurance given by the MLA and officials of the Revenue Department, they would have pursued the matter in the revision, and it is not at all open for the 2nd respondent to deny the compensation. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. The particulars of various proceedings in relation to the land, are mentioned. It is also stated that the petitioners do not have any legal right to claim compensation. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The circumstances under which the petitioners approached this Court by filing C.R.P., have already been stated, in brief. At a time when the revision was pending and the interim order passed therein was in force, the respondents mooted the proposal to resume the land by promising payment of compensation for the improvements made by the petitioners, namely trees, bore-wells etc. The petitioners believed the representation and have withdrawn the C.R.P. That paved the way for taking possession of the land. In all sincerity, the 3rd respondent has undertaken an exercise of ascertaining the value of the fruit bearing trees, from the Forest Range Officer, that of the bore-wells, from the Rural Water Supply Department and of all the other structures, by the R & B Department. He addressed a letter, dated 13.02.2009 to the 2nd respondent, duly enclosing the estimates furnished by the respective departments. The 2nd respondent issued the impugned endorsement/proceedings, as though nothing has ensued from their side, after the petitioners filed C.R.P. There was absolutely no justification or basis for the 2nd respondent in making the endorsement. If what is stated by the petitioners is true, the only inference can be that they have been mislead, if not, cheated and the local MLA and other officials have played foul, in convincing the petitioners to withdraw the C.R.P., and getting possession of the land. The 2nd respondent appears to have taken advantage of the belief which the petitioners reposed in the Legislators and officials. Principle of estoppel and doctrine of legitimate expectation come into play. The Court can verify and scrutinise the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the C.R.P. and if it emerges that the petitioners were induced to withdraw the same by the respondents, action can also be initiated. Principle of estoppel and doctrine of legitimate expectation come into play. The Court can verify and scrutinise the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the C.R.P. and if it emerges that the petitioners were induced to withdraw the same by the respondents, action can also be initiated. At one stage, this Court thought of restoring the C.R.P. to file and direct resumption of the land in favour of the petitioners, if necessary by clearing all the structures made upon it, by the institution. However, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the steps for ascertaining the compensation payable to the petitioners may be directed to be carried out. This Court finds that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned endorsement is totally untenable and unethical. What is sought to be paid is not even the cost of the land. It was only for the improvements upon the land, which the petitioners have brought about over the past several decades. Huge funds were also allotted to the institution, for its infrastructure. The 2nd respondent exhibited all his smartness, in trampling the rights of the petitioners. Such an approach cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to arrange for payment of compensation as proposed by the 3rd respondent within a period of three months for the fruit bearing trees and improvements made by the petitioners over the land, such as bore-wells and buildings within a period of three months. The petitioners shall be put on notice before the amount is determined. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.