JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, Ranga Reddy District (4th respondent) in proceedings Ref. No.D/727/2011 dt.06-04-2017 fixing exgratia for the land of the petitioners, which was acquired for expansion of Hardware Park in Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Petitioners were granted D.Form pattas for various extents of land in Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the State of Telangana between 1993 to 1995. They were also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. They claim to have developed the land and brought it under cultivation by raising different varieties of crops. 3. While so, a show cause notice dt.05-09-2009 was issued by the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal (5th respondent) to the petitioners stating that the then State Government decided to resume the land under G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assignment. I) Department dt.23-12-1993 by paying ex-gratia and requested them to file objections. 4. Petitioners filed such objections through a reply dt.15-09-2009 issued through their counsel. 5. When respondents attempted to dispossess the petitioners from the land without paying compensation, they filed W.P.No.22658 of 2009 before this Court. 6. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23-10-2009 directing the Tahsildar to consider the reply given by the petitioners to the show cause notice issued by him and forward the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District for taking appropriate decision in that regard within four weeks. 7. Thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division issued proceedings No.D/727/2008 on 24-11-2009 fixing the exgratia of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre for lands of each of the petitioners. 8. Petitioners questioned the same in W.P.No.14271 of 2010 after receiving the amount offered by respondents under protest. 9. In June, 2010 possession of the petitioners was taken and the same was handed over to the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, predecessor of the Telangana State Industrial infrastructure Corporation (6th respondent). 10. Petitioners contended in the said Writ Petition that 6th respondent executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of one M/s. Pragati Pack (India) Private Limited for an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village through a registered document on 29-06-2011 at Rs.69,81,075/- per acre and this itself indicates that the rate offered to petitioners was meagre. 11. 10. Petitioners contended in the said Writ Petition that 6th respondent executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of one M/s. Pragati Pack (India) Private Limited for an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village through a registered document on 29-06-2011 at Rs.69,81,075/- per acre and this itself indicates that the rate offered to petitioners was meagre. 11. W.P.No.14271 of 2010 was allowed on 07-03-2011 setting aside the order dt.24-11-2009 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District and he was directed to determine the ex-gratia payable to the petitioners in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1307 dt.23-12-1993 within three months. C.C.No.1481 of 2011 12. This direction was not complied by respondents and so petitioners filed C.C.No.1481 of 2011. 13. The 4th respondent then issued a notice on 07-12-2011 to the petitioners to attend an enquiry on 15-12-2011 for fixing the exgratia to the petitioners’ lands. 14. Petitioners filed written submission claiming compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- and 30% solatium. 15. However, the 4th respondent issued proceedings No.D/727/2011 dt.12-04-2012 fixing exgratia at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. W.P.No.28096 of 2012 16. Petitioners then filed W.P.No.28096 of 2012 questioning the proceedings Roc.No.D/727/2011 dt.12-04-2012 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, Ranga Reddy District contending that even this amount is meager and does not reflect the correct market value. 17. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23-12-2015 holding that the award of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre to the petitioners is on the lower side and a direction was given to pay compensation at Rs.26,50,000/- per acre + 30% solatium thereon. W.A.Nos.1353 of 2016 and 959 of 2016 18. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed W.A.Nos.1353 of 2016 and 959 of 2016. 19. The said Writ Appeal was partly allowed on 15-12-2016 by setting aside the direction of the learned Single Judge in so far as he directed payment of compensation at Rs.26,50,000/- per acre but confirming his order in so far as he set aside the order dt.17-02-2012 of the 4th respondent. A direction was given by the Division Bench to the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District or any other competent authority to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioners on the basis of market value of the subject land as on 05-09-2009 within three months and petitioners were given liberty to produce evidence of sale transactions through representations before the said Officer. 20. 20. Subsequent to the said order of the Division Bench and purporting to be in compliance thereof, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order vide proceedings No.D/727/2011 dt.06-04-2017. He stated inter alia as under: “After discarding the above sales, the sales at Sl.Nos.3 to 22 pertains to Sy.No.117 of Raviryal village are left over. These sales have been took place in the month of November, 2006 and the rate per acre is Rs.15,00,000/-. During the inspection of land resumed for Hardware Park and sale lands and enquiry it is revealed that this Sy.No.117 is abutting the main road leading to Tukkuguda village of Maheshwaram Mandal from Raviryal village and that developmental activities i.e. converting the land into plots has already started in the year 2007 the prices of this land has been gone up abnormally. Whereas the government land bearing Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village is covered by boulders, rocks and bushes except some cultivation by assignees. Moreover, there is no approach road to the assigned lands, but the assignees used to enter their lands from the land in Sy.No.117 of Raviryal village. The Value of this land is Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, during the period 2006. There is no boom in market value of the lands from the year 2007 and the increase in land value is very low in the villages. Therefore an amount of Rs.45,000-00 (Rupees forty five thousands only) is added as appreciation for (3) years i.e. @ Rs.15,000-00 per year, making the total value of the land at Rs.15,45,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs forty five thousands only) per acre, which is in my view reasonable price. Therefore I accordingly re-determine the market value of the land at Rs.15,45,000-00 per acre”. The instant W.P 21. Petitioners assail the same in this Writ Petition contending that the action of 4th respondent in taking the base year for determination of compensation as November, 2006 (i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- per acre) and adding a small sum of Rs.45,000/- thereon on the pretext that there was no boom in market value of the land from the year 2007, and re-determining the market value at only Rs.15,45,000/- per acre is contrary to the direction of the Division bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1353 of 2016 and 959 of 2016. Petitioners contend that when there is a specific direction by the Division Bench of this Court to re-determine the market value of the land as on 05-09-2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division, Ranga Reddy District could not have taken base value in November, 2006 and proceed to redetermine compensation and by doing so, he has grossly violated the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Counter affidavit of the 4th respondent 22. Counter-affidavit has been filed by 4th respondent refuting the above contentions and contending that in compliance with the directions of the Division Bench in its order dt.15-12-2016 in W.A.Nos.1353 and 959 of 2016, the determination of compensation payable to the petitioners has been made by him. 23. I have noted the contentions of both sides. The consideration by the Court 24. In Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekala Pandu and others ( 2004(2) ALT 546 (L.B.), a Larger Bench of this Court held that assignees of agricultural lands like petitioners are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the assigned land and deprivation thereof amounts to deprivation of the right to livelihood. 25. The principles for determination of market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are well settled and so they need to be applied to determine the market value of the petitioners’ land as on 5-9-2009. 26. The main principle is that when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. 27. In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 5 S.C.C 432 ), the Supreme Court reiterated this and held that when several sale deeds are available with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that highest of the sales, if they are bona fide sales, has to be considered and accepted and the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different value. It specifically held that it is not desirable to consider average consideration mentioned in various sale deeds placed before the authority for fixing fair compensation. It observed: “17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.” (emphasis supplied) 28. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568 ) the Court emphasized the need to take into account the potentiality of the acquired land. It declared: “4. In order to determine the compensation which the tenure-holders are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the main question to be considered is what is the market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression “market value” has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arm’s length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. See Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 3 SCC 772 ), Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P (1977) 1 SCCC 684)., Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150 ) and Periyar Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195 ). 5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur (1979) 1 SCC 236 ), Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt ( AIR 1967 SC 465 ) and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi (5 suppra). The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur (1979) 1 SCC 236 ), Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt ( AIR 1967 SC 465 ) and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi (5 suppra). It has been held in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer (1984) 2 SCC 324 ) and Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust (1989) 2 SCC 329 ) that failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is an error of principle.” (emphasis supplied) 29. In Digamber and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2013) 14 S.C.C. 406 ), the Supreme Court however held that acquisition of land is for functional purpose and that should also be relevant criteria for determining the market value and even sale instances of small plots of land can be relied upon if the acquired land has got non-agricultural potentiality. 30. These legal principles are not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. 31. When a specific direction was given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1353 and 959 of 2016 to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioners as per the market value as on 05-09-2009, it was incumbent on the part of 4th respondent to consider the sale transactions proximate to 05-09-2009 in time and which have occurred in relation to land which is close in proximity to Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village where the petitioners held lands which had been resumed. 32. There are many transactions noted by 4th respondent in the impugned order which occurred in the year 2008 in various survey numbers which are located within 2 K.Ms. from the land in Sy.No.18 where the market value was Rs.27.50,000/- per acre, the last of which is item No.91 in Sy.No.100 of Raviryal village which occurred on 11-08-2008 of land of extent Ac.0-12 gts which is 1.4 km away from land of petitioners. Apart from this, there are also transactions such as item 85 where Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.89 was sold @ Rs.27,50,000on 17.7.2008, which is 1 km away from land of petitioners. All these transactions were rejected by 4th respondent on the ground that they were 1.4 to 1.5 K.Ms. away from the resumed land of petitioners. Apart from this, there are also transactions such as item 85 where Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.89 was sold @ Rs.27,50,000on 17.7.2008, which is 1 km away from land of petitioners. All these transactions were rejected by 4th respondent on the ground that they were 1.4 to 1.5 K.Ms. away from the resumed land of petitioners. He thus violated the principle laid down in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others (2 supra) that transactions closer in proximity from the point of view of distance as well as time from the acquired land and the date of acquisition ought to be taken into account while determining market value of the acquired land. 33. Also, having noted in the impugned order dt.06-04-2017 that lands in Sy.Nos.117 of Raviryal village was by the side of Sy.No.18 and they were sold at Rs.25 lakhs per acre between 18-05-2007 and 15-06-2007 (sale transactions Nos.33 to 39, 41 to 49) and such land had development activity even in 2007 and there was abnormal increase in the land value, the 4th respondent ought not to have discarded them. He thus omitted to apply the settled principle of potentiality of the land of the petitioners in determining the market value of their land. 34. The 4th respondent also referred to a re-conveyance deed Doc.No.1628/09 dt.03-04-2009 for Ac.50.00 in Sy.Nos.50, 66, 68, 69, 70, 84 to 87 of Raviryal village at Rs.1 crore per acre. No reason is assigned why this is ignored. 35. Petitioners also rely on an agreement for sale of land dt.29.6.2011 which was executed by the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited in favour of M/s. Pragati Pack (India) Private Limited for an extent of Ac.5.00 of undeveloped land in Sy.No.18 at Rs.69,81,075/- per acre. No explanation is given by 4th respondent for discarding this also. 36. Having admitted in para no.10 of the counter that as per Market Value Guidelines, the land value as on 01.01.2008 was Rs.27,50,000/- per acre, and value of surrounding patta lands even prior to the relevant date of 05.09.2009 was Rs.27,50,000/- per acre as per the Basic Register maintained by the Sub-Registrar, Maheswaram, and actual private sales of patta lands in the said village were happening at rates between Rs.70 to 90 lakhs per acre, it is shocking that the 4th respondent arrived at a low rate of Rs.15,45,000/- per acre. 37. 37. It is further not proper for the 4th respondent to contend in para no.11 of the counter that Rs.27,50,000/- per acre was not the correct market value as per Market Value guidelines as on 01.01.2009. Why the said value is not as per Market Value guidelines is not explained. 38. Merely because the vendee under Document No.4675/2008 dt.22.05.2008 was an N.R.I. and the document was not a sale deed but an agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A the 4th respondent cannot refuse to take it into account. 39. The contention of the 4th respondent that Basic Value Register maintained by Sub-Registrars might indicate market value and the said value can be considered, is also not in accordance with law since the Supreme Court has time and again held that market value recorded in such Registers cannot be taken as the basis for arriving at compensation in land acquisition cases. [See Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini (1995) 1 SCC 717 ]. 40. When the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents in W.A.Nos.1353 and 959 of 2016, conceded that the market value should be paid to the petitioners which was prevalent on 05-09-2009, and the Division Bench in the said Writ Appeals accepted the same, I am of the opinion that the 4th respondent could not have proceeded to fix the market value of the petitioners’ lands by taking into account the market rate existing as in November, 2006, add Rs.15,000/- per year for 3 years, and then arrive at Rs.15,45,000/- per acre as the market value for the lands of the petitioners. He thus clearly disobeyed the direction of the Division Bench, which cannot be countenanced. 41. In this view of the matter, the impugned order in Proceedings No.D/727/2011 dt.06.04.2017 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 42. It is thus seen that (i) the proceedings dt.24.11.2009 of the 4th respondent fixing compensation at Rs.6 lakh per acre were set aside on 07.03.2011 in WP.No.14271 of 2010, (ii) the determination of market value at Rs.15 lakhs vide proceedings No.D/727/2011 dt.12.04.2012 was set aside in WP.No.28096 of 2012 on 23.12.2015 which was also confirmed in the order dt.15.12.2016 in W.A.No.1353 and 959 of 2016, and now (iii) the determination of market value at Rs.15,45,000/- per acre made vide proceedings No.D/727/2011 dt.06.04.2017 has been set aside. Thus, three times spread over a period of 9 years, the Revenue Divisional Officers have failed to properly determine the market value of the land of the petitioners as on 05.09.2009. 43. Even prior thereto, petitioners had to approach this Court by filing WP.No.22658 of 2009 and in between they had to file CC.No.1481 of 2011. 44. It appears that the respondents have no intention of applying the correct principles of law and arrive at the market value of the resumed land as on 5-9-2009 and were determined to wrongly exercise their discretion to fix the same, take into account irrelevant considerations and ignoring relevant considerations and harassing the petitioners and forcing them to file 5 cases in these 9 years. 45. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion it would be a travesty of justice to remand the matter back to 4th respondent for another time. 46. No doubt, in the order dt.15.12.2016 of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1353 and 959 of 2016, there is an observation that this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not take upon itself the task of determining the market value of assigned lands resumed by the Government and therefore, set aside the direction of the single judge in his order dt.23.12.2015 in WP.No.28096 of 2012 fixing the compensation at Rs.26,50,000/- per acre. 47. In a normal situation the view of the Division bench might apply but in situation like the present one when 3 times the determination of market value by 4th respondent is set aside and petitioners were forced to file in all 5 cases in last 9 years, the said principle cannot be applied. 48. 47. In a normal situation the view of the Division bench might apply but in situation like the present one when 3 times the determination of market value by 4th respondent is set aside and petitioners were forced to file in all 5 cases in last 9 years, the said principle cannot be applied. 48. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in The Comptroller and Auditor General v. K.S. Jagannathan ( AIR 1987 SC 537 , at Pg.546, Para No.20) has declared that in cases where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion malafide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred, High Courts under Article 226 have the power to issue Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus in order to prevent injustice and this power even extends to the Court itself passing an order or giving directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. (See). 49. This principle was reiterated in Badrinath v. State of Tamilnadu (2000) 8 SCC 395 ). The Supreme Court held: “87. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, contended that it is not the province of this Court to issue a mandamus to promote the appellant to the super-time scale nor to assess his grading. (See: Union of India v. Lt. Genl. Rajendra Singh Kadyan ( 2000 (6) SCC 698 ) This Court, it is true, does not normally make any such assessment on its own nor does it ordinarily issue a mandamus to promote an officer to the super-time scale. This is the general principle. 88. We may, however, point out that it is not as if there are no exceptions to this general principle. This is the general principle. 88. We may, however, point out that it is not as if there are no exceptions to this general principle. The occasions where the Court issued a writ of certiorari and quashed an Order and had also issued a mandamus at the same time to the State or public authority could be very rare but we might emphasise that the power of this Court to mould the relief in the interests of justice in extraordinary cases cannot be doubted. In Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan (14 supra) such a power on the part of this Court was accepted by a three-Judge Bench. Madon, J. referred to the observations of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) in Dwarka Nath v. ITO17 wherein the learned Judge explained that our Constitution designedly used wide language in Article 226 to enable the Courts to “reach justice wherever found necessary” and “to mould the relief’s to meet peculiar and complicated requirements of this country”. Justice Madon also referred to Rochester Corpn. v. R (1858 E.B. & E 1024)., R. v. Revising Barrister for the Borough of Hanley (1912) 3 K.B. 518), Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1968 A.C. 997) and to a passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 1, p. 59.” 50. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and taking into account the recalcitrant attitude of the 4th respondent in the matter of assessment of market value for the lands of petitioners as explained above, I am of the view that it is a fit case where this Court ought to exercise it’s powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and itself do the exercise of determination of market value of the lands in Sy.No.18 of Raviryal Village as on 05.09.2009; and the observations of the Division Bench in its order dt.15.12.2016 in W.A.No.1353 and 959 of 2016 cannot come in the way of this Court in doing so. 51. In the impugned order itself several transactions of dry land within a radius of 2 kms. from the land in Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village have been noticed in the year 2008 at the rate of Rs.27,50,000/- per acre (items 63 to 67, 69, 79, 85 to 87). Of these, item no.85 is a transaction for an extent of Ac.2.00 in Survey No.89 sold vide Regd. from the land in Sy.No.18 of Raviryal village have been noticed in the year 2008 at the rate of Rs.27,50,000/- per acre (items 63 to 67, 69, 79, 85 to 87). Of these, item no.85 is a transaction for an extent of Ac.2.00 in Survey No.89 sold vide Regd. Document No.6355/08 dt.17.07.2008 @ Rs.27,50,000/- per acre which 17 AIR 1966 SC 81 is 1 km from the land in Sy.No.18 (which was in occupation of petitioners and which was resumed). 52. This transaction occurred one year prior to 05.09.2009, the date on which market value is to be determined. Therefore, by adding an escalation of 10% to the same for the said period of one year, it is just to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,25,000/- per acre. On this amount, the petitioners would be entitled to 30% solatium. 53. Also for the abnormal delay in assessing the correct market value for all these years, I hold that the petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 8% p.a on the difference between the amount which they were already paid and the amount now directed to be paid in this order, till such payment is made from the date of resumption. 54. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the 1st respondent within 4 weeks and which is to be recovered from A. Narasimha Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division (the 4th respondent) who passed the impugned order; the proceedings No.D/727/2011 dt.06.04.2017 of the 4th respondent are set aside; the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners compensation for deprivation of their lands in Survey No.18 of Raviryal Village @ Rs.30,25,000/- with 30% solatium and interest @ 8% p.a on the difference between the amount which they were already paid and the amount now directed to be paid in this order, till such payment is made from the date of resumption within eight (08) weeks from today; the Registry shall issue a show-cause notice to the 4th respondent to show-cause why proceedings for Contempt of Court shall not be initiated against him for prima facie deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dt.15.12.2016 in W.A.Nos.1353 and 959 of 2016. Disciplinary action shall also be initiated against A. Narasimha Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division (the 4th respondent) by the 1st respondent for passing the impugned order in gross violation of the above order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1353 and 959 of 2016 and ignoring all the basic principles to be applied in determining the market value of the properties of the petitioners as on 05.09.2009. 55. All miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of.