ORDER : Heard Sri A.Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Aare Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Sri L Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the assignees/legal representatives of the assignees of various extents of land situated in Kothur and Thimmaipally Villages of Kandukuru Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Out of the land owned by all the petitioners herein, the land to an extent of Ac.1.38½ gts., situated in Sy.Nos.105 and 9 of Thimmaipally Village, was acquired by respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the purpose of widening the road for the benefit of respondent No.7 through the impugned proceedings No.D/957/2017, dated 29.12.2017. The said proceedings, dated 29.12.2017, is impugned in this Writ Petition by the petitioners on the ground that respondent No.4 played fraud on them and paid only an Ex-Gratia amount at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre though the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation on acquisition of their land in terms of the provisions contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 30 of 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 30 of 2013’) and also for all other benefits that were provided under the said enactment. The petitioners also claimed compensation on par with the other lands situated in very same village, as was granted to the other assignees through proceedings No.D/957/2017, dated 27.07.2018, wherein the compensation was paid at the rate of Rs.42,00,000/- per acre. It is also the case of the petitioners that their signatures were obtained on blank forms without mentioning the quantum of compensation/Ex-Gratia payable to them and they have only consented for acquisition of the land but not for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. Thus, the petitioners have seriously disputed about the consent that is said to have been given by the petitioners for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,00/- per acre. Thus, the petitioners have seriously disputed about the consent that is said to have been given by the petitioners for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,00/- per acre. The petitioners are paid Ex-Gratia amount proportionate to the land acquired from each of the petitioners at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre and after receipt of the said amount and after having come to know about the higher compensation that was paid in respect of other lands at the rate of Rs.42,00,000/- per acre, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 3. The impugned order refers to the negotiations that had taken place between the petitioners and the respondent officials on 24.09.2016, 13.02.2017 and 14.02.2017. Pursuant to the said negotiations, the respondents claimed to have issued a notification dated 23.03.2017 and 07.05.2017 published in the newspapers calling for objections and no objections stated to have been received by the respondents and accordingly, they have proceeded to pay the Ex-Gratia amount at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. 4. Sri A.Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel placed strong reliance on the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in the case of LAO-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and others v. Mekala Pandu, AIR 2004 AP 250 and also a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.14734 of 2018 and contended that in the light of the law laid down by this Court, the respondents are under obligation to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, 30 of 2013 and the respondents cannot take advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the petitioners and pay them meager amounts as Ex-Gratia thereby depriving the petitioners for payment of compensation in terms of the law laid down by this Court. He also contended that even if forms concerned, if any, signed by the petitioners are only blank forms when they were signed by the petitioners and the petitioners are totally unaware of the contents of the said forms. Therefore, any such consent even if given by the petitioners, the same cannot operate as an estoppel against the statute and the same cannot come in the way of the petitioners in agitating their right to claim compensation in terms of the law applicable to the acquisition proceedings. 5. Therefore, any such consent even if given by the petitioners, the same cannot operate as an estoppel against the statute and the same cannot come in the way of the petitioners in agitating their right to claim compensation in terms of the law applicable to the acquisition proceedings. 5. It is strenuously contended by Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader, that the petitioners have consented to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre as a lump-sum payment, which includes all the benefits for which the petitioners are entitled to under the provisions of the Act, 30 of 2013 and after having consented for the same and after having received the payments without any protest, the petitioners are not entitled to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. It is also contended that the petitioners cannot compare themselves with the land owners, whose land was acquired through proceedings, dated 27.07.2018, as the said acquisition was six months later to the acquisition in question and also on the ground that the location of the said lands and the market value of the said lands is totally different and cannot be compared to the land in question. He further contended that the petitioners are trying to take advantage of the word Ex-Gratia used in the impugned proceedings instead of mentioning the same as compensation, and in fact, the amount that was paid under the impugned proceedings to the petitioners is the compensation only but not the Ex-Gratia as is contended by the petitioners. 6. The land which is the subject matter of acquisition in the instant case was originally Government land assigned in favour of landless poor persons free of cost and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same as on the date of acquisition of the same by the respondents. The very fact that the land was assigned to the petitioners or their predecessor-in-title itself shows that they are the people from the down strata of the society. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have given their consent for payment of Ex-Gratia at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre, no material in support of such contention is placed before this Court, except an averment made in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have given their consent for payment of Ex-Gratia at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre, no material in support of such contention is placed before this Court, except an averment made in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. Even assuming that the petitioners have consented for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre, whether such consent would debar them from agitating their rights for payment of compensation as per the law applicable or not is a matter to be considered. Undoubtedly, the amount that is already paid to the petitioners is termed as Ex-Gratia amount only but not compensation covering all the components of compensation for which the petitioners are entitled to in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, 30 of 2013. 7. In the light of the law declared by the larger Bench of this Court in the case of LAO-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (1 supra), the assignee of a Government land free of cost by subjecting such assignment to various conditions such as resumption of lands for public purpose without compensation etc., shall not come in the way of such assignees for claiming compensation on par with the owners of the patta lands and the relevant portion from the said judgment reads as under:- “In the result, we hold that 'no compensation' clause, restricting the right of the assignees to claim full compensation in respect of the land resumed equivalent to the market value of the land, is unconstitutional. The 'no compensation clause' infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 31-A of the Constitution. We are conscious that Article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty. But in cases where deprivation of property would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood, Article 21 springs into action and any such deprivation without just payment of compensation amounts to infringement of the right guaranteed thereunder. The doctrine of 'unconstitutional conditions' applies in all its force. We are conscious that Article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty. But in cases where deprivation of property would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood, Article 21 springs into action and any such deprivation without just payment of compensation amounts to infringement of the right guaranteed thereunder. The doctrine of 'unconstitutional conditions' applies in all its force. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.” 8. As the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court has become final, there cannot be any dispute about the law laid down by the larger Bench of this Court and the same is binding on this Court as well as on the Respondent-State. 9. The next question that needs to be addressed is whether the so-called consent given by the petitioners to receive Ex-Gratia at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre will come in the way of the petitioners for seeking relief, as sought for, in the present Writ Petition. 9. The next question that needs to be addressed is whether the so-called consent given by the petitioners to receive Ex-Gratia at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre will come in the way of the petitioners for seeking relief, as sought for, in the present Writ Petition. As rightly pointed out by Sri A.Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel, this issue was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in elaborate while disposing of Writ Petition in the case of Resu Rama Rao and others v. State of Telangana and others, W.P.No.14734 of 2018, dated 31.10.2018, wherein it was held as under:- “Though the determination at Rs.12.00 lakhs per acre as exgratia is being supported in the counter affidavit filed by respondents, it is clear that no exercise has been done to determine the market value of the lands of the petitioners in accordance with the principles laid down in Act 30 of 2013 by the respondents. Thus, it is clear that the respondents deliberately ignored the decision of Mekala Pandu (1 supra) and instead of paying market value compensation and benefits payable under the Land Acquisition Law to the petitioners, circumvented the same by fixing only exgratia, that too without giving any notice of hearing to the petitioners regarding the determination of compensation payable to them. They have thus committed a fraud on the petitioners. Only one consent letter of one individual has been filed by the respondents in support of their plea that the petitioners voluntarily accepted to receive the amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs per acre and also agreed not to seek any enhancement by approaching any Court. A look at the consent letter shows that it is a printed format. Petitioners contend that they illiterate and by misleading some of them, their thumb impressions and signatures have been obtained on blank consent forms. Any such statements obtained from the petitioners without independent legal advice cannot operate as an estoppel since there can be no estoppel against law (See Elson Machines (P) Ltd v. CCE, AIR 1989 SC 617 ) and the petitioners cannot be deprived of compensation on market value basis with other statutory benefits under the applicable land acquisition law merely on the basis of the statements obtained from them. In fact the conduct of the respondents in obtaining the same from the petitioner appears to be unconscionable and is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in view of the unequal bargaining power between the petitioner and the respondents as held in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 . I am therefore of the opinion that the impugned order insofar as exgratia payable to the petitioners only at Rs.12.00 lakhs per acre is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and violates Articles 14 and 300-A and the decision in Mekala Pandu (1 supra) and the alleged consent letters obtained from some or all of the petitioners cannot estop them from claiming higher compensation.” 10. In the light of the above Judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court, in the considered view of this Court, the said judgment applies to the facts of the case on hand with all force and the petitioners herein are also entitled for the similar relief as was granted to the petitioners in Writ Petition No.14734 of 2018. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order issued in Proceedings No.D/957/2017, dated 29.12.2017, by respondent No.4 insofar as fixing Ex-Gratia payable to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre is set aside and respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to compute the compensation payable to the petitioners strictly, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 30 of 2013 by applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of LAO-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (1 supra) and pay the compensation payable to the petitioners proportionate to the land acquired from them after duly adjusting the amounts already paid. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before passing any orders, respondent No.4 shall give notice to the petitioners to enable them to produce the material regarding market value of the land in question and then pass orders, as directed above, by following the due process of law. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as indicated hereinabove. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.