ORDER : The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to pass an order or Writ of direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 26-04-2018 passed by the 4th respondent RDO Nandyal rejecting the claim of compensation of the petitioner without even resumption of the land of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconscionable, and violative of the petitioner’s rights enshrined in the Right to Fair Compensation, transparency and Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 as also opposed to Article 300-A Constitution of India apart from being violative settled law of the land as reflected in the ratio laid down in 7 Judge Constitution Bench in “Mekala Pandu” case confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order dated 04-08-2014 in Civil Appeal No.7904-7912 of 2012 and consequently direct payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of Ac.4.00 cents of land in survey no.675 in Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh as per G.O.Ms.No.259 which is the present legal position for payment of compensation to assignees and pass such other order or further orders …” 2. a) The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner was assigned land of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents in survey No.675 of Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, in the year, 1999. Pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. In the year, 2015 petitioner’s land was resumed for setting up of Ultra Mega Solar Power Plant by the Andhra Pradesh Solar Power Corporation Limited. b) Since compensation was not paid, petitioner and others filed W.P.No.25404 of 2015 and batch. The said batch were disposed of by a common order dated 14.07.2017. Learned Single Judge of the composite High Court directed the Revenue Authorities to pay the compensation based on the revenue records and further directed the petitioners to submit true or Xerox copies of the documents in the possession of the petitioners in respect of their claim for compensation. The said batch were disposed of by a common order dated 14.07.2017. Learned Single Judge of the composite High Court directed the Revenue Authorities to pay the compensation based on the revenue records and further directed the petitioners to submit true or Xerox copies of the documents in the possession of the petitioners in respect of their claim for compensation. Pursuant to common order, dated 14.07.2017, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal (for short ‘RDO’), by order dated 04.12.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner and some others on the ground hat petitioner failed to produce evidence to prove that the land was brought under cultivation. Therefore, petitioner fled C.C.No.424 of 2018. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No. 25404 of 2015 and pendency of C.C.No.424 of 2018 and batch, the orders passed by RDO vide proceedings in Rc.B/7506/2015 dated 04.12.2017 were recalled. c) Subsequently petitioner submitted copies of the pattadar passbook, title deed and DKT patta in the office of RDO, Nandyal. However, RDO, by proceedings in Rc.B.238/2018 in W.P.No.25404/2015 dated 26.04.2018 again rejected claim of the petitioner. Inspite of repeated visits of the petitioner to the office of RDO, petition is not paid compensation. Aggrieved by the action of the authorities, the present writ petition is filed. 3. a) Counter was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. It is contended, interalia, that land acquisition proceedings have been initiated before acquiring the patta lands and compensation has also been paid to the pattadars and eligible assignees, who are in cultivation of the assigned lands. In respect of petitioner’s land, as per revenue records, land was not brought under cultivation as per the conditions of D-form patta. Hence, petitioner was not paid compensation and the same informed to her by proceedings, dated 26.04.2018. Though petitioner was given opportunity, petitioner failed to produce record of evidence to show that petitioner was in cultivation of the land. b) As per RSR of the village, land of an extent of Ac.5-38 cents in survey No.675 of Gani village is recorded as assessed waste land and as per D-form patta of the petitioner, an extent of Ac.4-00 cents with sub-division number 675 was assigned to the petitioner by the then Tahsildar, Gadivemula vide R.Dis.247/08 dated 11.03.2008 without approval of the Assignment Committee. Assignment records were not traced out in the office of Tahsildar. Assignment records were not traced out in the office of Tahsildar. As per the adangal for faslis 1419 to 1424, there are no entries of cultivation against subject survey number. After examining the revenue records and the report of Tahsildar, it is observed that petitioner has not brought the land under cultivation within three years from the date of assignment as per the patta conditions. Issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed is not only criteria for payment of compensation. Rejection order, dated 26.04.2018 passed by RDO is legal and according to existing assignment rules. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri A.Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in spite of resumption of lands in the year, 2015, the authorities failed to pay the compensation to the petitioner. He would also submit that one of the grounds on which the RDO declined to pay compensation is that assignment of land in favour of the petitioner is not reflected in the assignment committee register. He would submit that on that ground, petitioner’s claim cannot be rejected since the said register is internal register and does not form part of revenue record. He would further submit that the other ground taken by the RDO, that land of the petitioner was not brought under cultivation within a period of three years from the date of assignment, has already been rejected by the Court. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that the name of petitioner was not entered in the Assignment Committee Register and the then Tahsildar, Gadivemula assigned land to the petitioner without approval of the Assignment Committee. He would submit that there are no entries of cultivation against subject survey number. Issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed is not only criteria for payment of compensation. As per the conditions of patta, the land has to be brought under cultivation within three years. However, as per the revenue records and enquiry conducted by the authorities, the land is not under cultivation. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. As seen from the record, there is no dispute that the petitioner was assigned land vide D-Patta File No.247/2008, dated 11.03.2008. However, as per the revenue records and enquiry conducted by the authorities, the land is not under cultivation. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. As seen from the record, there is no dispute that the petitioner was assigned land vide D-Patta File No.247/2008, dated 11.03.2008. It is an undisputed fact that the lands were resumed for the purpose of establishing Ultra Mega Solar Power Plant by the Andhra Pradesh Solar Power Corporation Limited. 8. The Tahsildar of Gadivemula Mandal updated the RoR and issued PPB and TD in favour of the petitioner vide Khata No.991. After disposal of W.P.No.16274 of 2017 and batch, RDO in the proceedings in Rc.B.238/2018 in W.P.No.25404/2015 dated 26.04.2018, rejected claim of the petitioner on the grounds that D-Patta issued in favour of the petitioner was not approved in the Assignment Committee register and that the petitioner failed to produce evidence to show that the land is under cultivation. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that according to the authorities, D-Patta was granted irregularly in favour of the petitioner. However, nothing is discernible from the counter as to what action was initiated against the concerned person who issued D-Patta in favour of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was incorporated in revenue records and PPB and TD were also issued. According to the petitioner, she continued in possession till the lands were resumed by the Government in the year, 2015. In case if the patta was issued without following procedure or petitioner has violated any of the conditions of the assignment, the authorities ought to have cancelled the assignment. Admittedly, assignment patta was not cancelled. After this length of time the Government cannot reject claim of the petitioner on flimsy grounds. Since patta was not cancelled before resumption of land, petitioner is entitled for compensation. Therefore, the proceedings impugned are liable to set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of land resumed (assigned to petitioner as per the patta referred to supra) situated at Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District, as per LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and other V. Mekala Pandu and others, 2004 AIR 2004 (AP) 250 case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.