JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.9326 of 2008 dated 21.08.2017. The respondents herein filed the aforesaid Writ Petition to declare the action of the Mandal Tahsildar, Anantapur in passing order and in resuming the lands vide proceedings dated 25.07.2007, without paying compensation to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. In the order under appeal, the Learned Single Judge observed that resumption of lands by the appellants herein did not satisfy the principles of natural justice; and the respondents should, therefore, not interfere or disturb or dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands except in accordance with law. 3. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that a notice dated 03.07.2007 was issued to the first petitioner's father informing him that neither the assignee nor his legal heirs were cultivating the subject land which had been alienated; Government land could not be alienated, and could only be enjoyed either by the assignee or his legal heirs; and they had not cultivated the land ever since the grant of assignment. The assignee Sri P. Hanumanthu was asked to show cause why the subject land should not be resumed to the government, and was informed that they should surrender the land before 24.07.2007. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) would draw our attention to the order under appeal to submit that, since the respondent-writ petitioners were not living in the village, notice was affected through substituted service by affixture of the notice on the subject land. 5. On the other hand Smt. A. Chaya Devi, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners, would submit that notice was sought to be served on the original assignee, who died much earlier in the year 1994 itself; and the alleged service of notice on a dead person does not accord with law. It does appear that the notice, sought to be affected through substituted service, was also on a dead person. We find no reason, therefore, to fault the order of the Learned Single Judge whereby the order of resumption was set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. 6. It does appear that the notice, sought to be affected through substituted service, was also on a dead person. We find no reason, therefore, to fault the order of the Learned Single Judge whereby the order of resumption was set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. 6. The fact, however, remains that, even in the order under appeal, the Learned Single Judge has noted the submission, urged on behalf of the appellant, that after resumption of the subject land, vide proceedings dated 25.07.2007, assignment pattas were issued to the beneficiaries vide proceedings dated 06.11.2007; and the beneficiaries had also constructed houses in the subject land. The order of the Learned Single Judge directing the appellants not to dispossess the respondent-writ petitioners from the subject land, though they had been dispossessed therefrom as early as on 25.07.2007 and though the land was thereafter handed over to certain beneficiaries on 06.11.2007 who had also constructed houses thereupon, may not be justified. 7. If an assignment is cancelled for violation of the conditions of the assignment deed, the Government is then entitled to resume the land and utilise it for any public purpose. If, on the other hand, the assigned lands are resumed for a public purpose, then, in the light of the larger bench judgment of this Court in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandit, 2004 (2) ALT 546 : AIR 2004 A.P. 250 : 2004 (2) ALD 451 , the assignees are entitled to be compensated on the basis of the market value determined in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. As the impugned order of resumption was served on a dead person, and has been set aside by the Learned Single Judge, it is but appropriate that a notice be issued afresh to the petitioners (who claim to be the grand children of the original assignee and to have inherited these lands from him), asking them to show cause why the subject lands should not be resumed for violation of the conditions of assignment. As the Learned Government Pleader expresses doubt of their being able to serve the notices on the respondent-writ petitioners at the address mentioned in the cause title of the Writ Petition, Smt. A. Chaya Devi, Learned Counsel appearing on their behalf, would submit that, in addition, a copy of the notice may be handed over to her to enable her, in turn, to hand it over to the respondent-writ petitioner. 9. Suffice it, therefore, to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first appellant to issue notice afresh, as aforementioned, within two weeks from today to the respondent-writ petitioners, and effect service thereof in the manner indicated hereinabove. The respondent-writ petitioners shall, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the notice from the first appellant, submit their reply thereto within three weeks thereafter. The first appellant shall, within four weeks of receipt of the reply from the respondent-writ petitioners, pass orders afresh in accordance with law. If the first appellant holds the respondent-writ petitioners to have violated the conditions of assignment, it is then open to the respondent-writ petitioners to question the validity of such an order in appropriate legal proceedings. If, on the other hand, the first appellant comes to the conclusion that the respondent-writ petitioners have not violated the conditions of assignment, he shall pass an order of resumption of the subject land for a public purpose within two weeks thereafter, and the respondent-writ petitioners shall be entitled for compensation, in accordance with the law declared by the larger bench judgment of this Court in Mekala Pandu, 2004 (2) ALT 546 : AIR 2004 A.P. 250 : 2004 (2) ALD 451 (supra), within three months from the date of passing of the order of resumption. 10. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.