JUDGMENT : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos.580 and W.A. No.584 of 2022, and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for the appellants in W.A. No.147 of 2022 and W.A. No.588 of 2021 and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 in all the Writ Appeals, apart from perusing the material available on record. 2. In W.A. Nos.580 & 147 of 2022, challenge is to the order, dated 01.09.2021, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.12114 of 2021 and in W.A. Nos.584 & 588 of 2021, challenge is to the order, dated 08.03.2021, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.13586 of 2019. 3. W.P. No.12114 of 2021 came to be instituted, assailing the order, dated 11.05.2021, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapuramu District and W.P. No.13586 of 2019 came to be filed, questioning the action of the official respondents in treating the subject land of Ac.1.69 cents out of Ac.5.05 cents situated in Sy.No.303/2 of Gollapuram, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuramu District as part of APIIC Industrial Park and for a consequential direction for restoration of the same to the writ petitioner. By way of the orders impugned in these appeals, the learned single Judges of this Court allowed the Writ Petitions. Hence, the present appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 4. Since the contentions in all these cases are the same and the Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are also the same, this Court deems it apt and appropriate to hear these cases together and dispose of these appeals by way of this common order. 5. Broadly, there are two contentions that are sought to be pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellants. They are: 1) In view of the consent expressed by the writ petitioner and recorded by the learned single Judge in the Interlocutory Order, dated 06.11.2020, in W.P. No.13586 of 2019, the present Writ Petition, filed by the respondent No. 1, assailing the order, dated 11.06.2021, should have been dismissed by the learned single Judge; and 2) Since the petitioner purchased the property in 2011 i.e., much subsequent to taking possession in 2008, the learned single Judges ought to have rejected the Writ Petitions. 6. 6. Though Right to Property is no longer a Fundamental Right, it continues to be a Constitutional Right, as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which, in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of his or her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is no longer a res integra that the provisions of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity, the Act'), which prohibits transfer of assigned lands, would not apply in respect of the sales effected for recovery of the loans advanced by the Co-operative institutions, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District and another v. KGuravaiah 2009 (2) ALD 250 (DB). 7. In order to deal with the first contention, as to the alleged expression of consent, it is necessary to refer to the Interlocutory Order of this Court in W.P. No.13586 of 2019, dated 06.11.2020, which reads as follows: "This petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in treating the petitioner's private land in an extent of Ac.1.69 cents out of Ac.5.05 cents in Sy.No.303/2 of Gollapzzram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Ananthapuram District, as part of the APIIC Industrial Park, Gollapuram, Hindupur Mandal and handing over the same to the 7th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. At the stage of admission, this Court has granted status quo orders. After issuing notices to the 5th and 6th respondents filed their counter and additional counter affidavit on 09.12.2019. In their counter affidavit they have specifically stated that by mistake they have included the subject lands in the list of acquired lands, and the respondents undertake to pay compensation as per the rules of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (also Land Acquisition Act, 2013) for this particular land following due process of law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even the same was brought to the notice of the concerned respondents, but they have not acted upon it and they are dragging the matter for years together. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even the same was brought to the notice of the concerned respondents, but they have not acted upon it and they are dragging the matter for years together. Learned Government Pleader appearing for AAG and the learned Standing Counsel for APIIC Limited undertook that they are ready to complete the process within a short period by constituting a committee as per Rule 8 of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents i.e., the State as well as APIIC Limited are directed to complete the process and file a report before this Court as expeditiously as possible and the petitioner undertakes to cooperate. Post the matter after three (03) weeks." 8. It is very much clear and evident from a reading of the above said order, dated 06.11.2020, in W.P. No.13586 of 2019, that duly taking into consideration the averments in the counter and additional counter-affidavits, filed on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial. Infrastructure Corporation, that mistakenly the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.1.69 cents was included, the learned single Judge, by recording the statement of the respondents that they would constitute a Negotiation Committee for deciding the compensation, also observed that the writ petitioner would also undertake to co-operate. 9. It is required to be noted that, pursuant to the above interim order, dated 06.11.2020, the issue was referred to the Negotiation Committee, constituted under Section 23-A of the Act r/w Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2018 (for brevity, the Rules') notified vide G.O. Ms.No.562 Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department dated, 13.11.2018. Thereafter, the committee, so constituted, issued notice to the petitioner in Form-D for his willingness and, admittedly, the petitioner did not express his consent in Form E-I as per Rule 7 of the said Rules. In fact, in the Minutes of the Negotiation Committee, dated 08.01.2021, the Negotiation Committee recorded that the petitioner demanded Rs. 70,00,000/- per acre, as such, the issue was being referred to Land Acquisition Appellate Authority under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013, which course of action was impermissible. 10. In fact, in the Minutes of the Negotiation Committee, dated 08.01.2021, the Negotiation Committee recorded that the petitioner demanded Rs. 70,00,000/- per acre, as such, the issue was being referred to Land Acquisition Appellate Authority under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013, which course of action was impermissible. 10. When the position being so, W.P. No.13586 of 2019 came up for consideration before the learned single Judge for hearing and the learned single Judge, taking all the above developments into consideration, disposed of the Writ Petition vide order, dated 08.03.2021, directing to pay compensation in accordance with Act 30 of 2013. 11. It is significant to note that, having decided to refer the issue to the Land Acquisition Appellate Authority, earlier, vide Minutes, dated 08.01.2021, the authorities passed an order, dated 11.05.2021, unilaterally, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 34,60,636/- per acre. Assailing the validity and the legal sustainability of the same, W.P. No.12114 of 2021 came to be instituted and the appellants resisted the said Writ Petition, contending, principally, that the land was resumed in 2008 and the writ petitioner purchased it in 2011 and the petitioner had no locus or right to assail the order, dated 11.05.2021. 12. It is pertinent to note that, when the predecessor-in-title wanted to get the sale registered in his favour, pursuant to his purchase in auction, an objection was raised on the ground that the subject land, being an assigned land, would not be amenable for sale, by referring to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act. The vendor of the petitioner filed W.P. No.29731 of 2010 and the same came to be allowed vide order, dated 29.11.2010, turning down the said objection on the ground that, after purchase in auction for realisation of debts due to the Co-operative Societies, there would be change of nature of property and the land would loose the character of assigned land. Therefore, it would not be open for the appellants to advance any contention contrary to the same. 13. The contention of the appellants that, having agreed to cooperate with the Negotiation Committee, it would not be open for the writ petitioner to go back, cannot be approved. The cooperation, as observed in the interim order, dated 06.11.2020, cannot be construed as compulsory acceptance to the offer made by the Negotiation Committee. 14. 13. The contention of the appellants that, having agreed to cooperate with the Negotiation Committee, it would not be open for the writ petitioner to go back, cannot be approved. The cooperation, as observed in the interim order, dated 06.11.2020, cannot be construed as compulsory acceptance to the offer made by the Negotiation Committee. 14. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be noted that the Court, in the said interim order, dated 06.11.2020, observed about the averment in the counter and additional counter that mistakenly the subject land was included and that the compensation would be paid. In fact, the State Authorities also constituted a committee, pursuant to the said order, but the negotiations did not fructify. The observation in the aforesaid order, that the writ petitioner would co-operate, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be construed as a permission to the authorities to pass the order, dated 11.05.2021, despite the absence of any consent by the writ petitioner. Therefore, the contention contra, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 15. In the name of filing the present appeals, the appellant authorities are, obviously, making an impermissible attempt in the direction of reopening the settled issues which have attained finality. 16. The contention that since the petitioner had no title, by the time the resumption orders were passed in 2008, is highly reprehensible and liable to be deprecated, since it is not the case of the authorities that they paid compensation amount to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Laws. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge in the orders impugned in these appeals, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any traces of doubt to hold that there are no merits in the appeals. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel, as regards the levy of costs, the amount stands scaled down to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 50,000/-. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these cases, shall stand closed.