Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in giving effect to Memo bearing No.38583/UC.II(3)/05-2, dated 15.07.2008 and proceedings No.E2/1797/05, dated 12.03.2010, of respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners pleaded that they are the owners of certain lands in Survey No.869 of Waddepally Village, Hanmakonda Mandal, Warangal District. They also stated that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are the owners of Ac.0.30 ½ guntas of land forming part of the same Survey number. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that their lands as well as the lands of respondent Nos.6 to 8 were taken over for allotment of house sites to surrendered extremists under the mistaken impression that the said lands were still remaining with the declarant under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 without proper verification of the fact that the same were purchased by the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8 before the commencement of the said Act. When the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8 have made their representations, respondent No.1 has issued Memo No.38583/UC.II(3)/05-2, dated 15.07.2008, wherein it has referred to the Collector’s report, dated 10.04.2008, to the effect that the extent of 2,316 square meters of land in Survey No.869 of Wadepally Village was erroneously taken possession treating the same as surplus land and most of the said land was allotted to the surrendered extremists and the remaining land is covered by the roads. The Collector has also reported that the Government land in Survey Nos.23 and 27 of Khajipet was available and that the land owners are agreeable for accepting the same in lieu of taking over of their lands. Accordingly, the Government directed the Collector to allot alternative land to an extent of 2,316 square meters in favour of petitioner No.1, respondent Nos.6 to 8 and one Routhu Rajeshwar Rao, who has since died and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his legal heirs. Following the said memo, respondent No.2 has issued proceedings No.E2/1797/05, dated 12.03.2010, directing respondent No.4 to take necessary action for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority to the extent of Ac.0.23 guntas of land and hand over the same to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8. Following the said memo, respondent No.2 has issued proceedings No.E2/1797/05, dated 12.03.2010, directing respondent No.4 to take necessary action for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority to the extent of Ac.0.23 guntas of land and hand over the same to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8. As no further action was taken on the aforesaid proceedings of respondent No.1 and 2, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition. 2. When this case came up before this Court on 07.08.2013, this Court while taking note of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) that as the land admeasuring Ac.0.23 guntas allotted to the land owners was found falling under the Full Tank Level (FTL) of a tank, the respondents could not handover the said land, directed respondent No.4 to file a counter-affidavit as to what measures he is proposing to take to redress the grievance of the petitioners either by allotting alternative land or by payment of compensation as per the market value. 3. Accordingly, respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit, wherein he has, inter alia, stated that as the extent of Ac.0.23 guntas handed over to Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (‘KUDA’) was found coming within the Full Tank Level of Bandam Cheruvu, the same could not be handed over to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8; that as the lands belonging to the Government within the radius of 10 kms from the Mandal Headquarters are subject matter of several court cases, finding suitable alternative land has become a time taking process; and that respondent No.4 will require some more time for allotting alternative land to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8. 4. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) stated that as respondent No.4 has not indicated the approximate time frame for finding and allotting suitable alternative land to the petitioners, he may be given four months’ time for completing this process. 5. In my opinion, as the petitioners were deprived of their land due to a purported mistake, the process of handing over of suitable alternative land does not brook any further delay. 5. In my opinion, as the petitioners were deprived of their land due to a purported mistake, the process of handing over of suitable alternative land does not brook any further delay. The respondents are under legal obligation to allot suitable alternative land to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 to 8 and if the same is not possible within a reasonable time, the State has to compensate the deprived land owners by paying the market value as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). As a request is made by respondent No.4 for grant of a reasonable time, which according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader is four months, this Court is inclined to accept his request. 6. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is granted four months’ time from today for identifying and allotting a suitable alternative land to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8. At least two weeks before the expiry of the four months time, respondent No.4 shall show the alternative land to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8. If they accept the land so identified, respondent Nos.2 and 4 shall complete the process of allotting and handing over of those lands to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8. If the alternative lands identified by respondent No.4 are not acceptable to the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8, respondent No.2 shall issue a notification under the provisions of the Act within one month after the expiry of the four months time. The petitioners and respondent Nos.6 to 8 shall be entitled to the market value as on the date of notification along with all other statutory benefits under the provisions of the Act and the award shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 7. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. 8. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.24681 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.