JUDGMENT : R.Raghunandan Rao, J. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the appellants and Sri P. Gangi Rami Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 had been occupation of various extents of land in Gudavolu village and had been cultivating the said lands. The extent and location of the said land is not in dispute. The dispute is only on the question of whether the respondents, whose lands have now been taken over by the State and have been submerged, under the Kandaleru Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project, are to be paid compensation, in terms of the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella Division, Hyderabad and Others vs. Mekala Pandu and Others, (2004) 2 ALT 546 (L.B). In this case, the Larger Bench was considering the question of whether assignees, who had been granted assignment under DKT pattas were entitled only for ex gratia or for payment and benefits on par with full owners of land even where the assigned land is taken over by State, in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, where such resumption is for a public purpose. The Larger Bench after considering the entire law on the issue, had held that the compensation clause restricting the right of the assignees to claim full compensation is unconstitutional and that, such assignees are entitled for the same compensation as is being paid to full owners of the land. This decision of the Larger Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said challenge was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 04.08.2014 in Civil Appeal No.7904 of 2012 and Batch. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 being aggrieved by non grant of compensation, on par with the owners of land in the neighbouring area, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.6666 of 2009, claiming compensation on par with all the land losers who were owners of the land. This Writ Petition was allowed by a learned single judge, by an order dated 14.10.2023, directing the appellants herein to pay full compensation with full consequential benefits to the respondents, on par with full owners of land. The appellants were permitted to deduct the payments, which had already been made, in the form of ex gratia. 4. This Writ Petition was allowed by a learned single judge, by an order dated 14.10.2023, directing the appellants herein to pay full compensation with full consequential benefits to the respondents, on par with full owners of land. The appellants were permitted to deduct the payments, which had already been made, in the form of ex gratia. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Special Collector (Land Acquisition) and The Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the appellants, contends that the respondents 1 to 4 are not assignees as they had been granted land as members of a Cooperative Farming Society Scheme and are only lessees under the CJFS Scheme. She would submit that these persons are not on par with D.K Patta holders and as such are not entitled to the benefit of the Judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella Division, Hyderabad and Others vs. Mekala Pandu and Others., nor to the benefits set out under G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assn-1) Dept., dated 21.06.2016. The question of whether lessees under the Cooperative Joint Forming Society Scheme should be equated with assignees holding DKT pattas had came up before this Court. A learned Single Judge, by an order dated 06.08.2018 in W.P.No.35981 of 2015, after considering the same issue had held that even lands given for displaced person under the Cooperative Joint Farming Society Scheme would be entitled to the benefit of Mekala Pandu's case. This Judgment was reaffirmed by the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 10.10.2018 In W.P.No.4486 of 2018. 5. In MEKALA PANDU, the larger Bench held as follows: 82. The assignees are constitutional claimants. The constitutional claim cannot be subjected to governmental restrictions or sanctions except pursuant to the constitutionally valid rule or law. There is no legislation enacted by the State compelling it to assign the lands to the weaker sections of the society. The State obviously assigned and granted pattas as a measure of providing public assistance to the weaker sections of the society. There is no legislation enacted by the State compelling it to assign the lands to the weaker sections of the society. The State obviously assigned and granted pattas as a measure of providing public assistance to the weaker sections of the society. The proposition is that as a general rule the State may grant privilege upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose; but the power of the State in that regard is not unlimited, and one of the limitations that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. That whenever State is required to make laws, regulations or policies, it must do so consistently with the directive principles with a view to securing social and economic freedom so essential for establishment of an egalitarian society. The directive principles of State policy reflect the hopes and aspirations of people of this great country. The fact that they are not enforceable by any Court in no manner reduces their importance. They are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and the State is under obligation to apply them in making laws and framing its policies particularly concerning the weaker sections of the society. 83. Dr. Ambedkar characterised the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution of India as “Instruments of Instructions”. He said “whoever captures power will not be free to do what he likes with it. In exercise of it, he will have to respect these “Instruments of Instructions”, which are called Directive Principles. He cannot ignore them.” …………. 91. “No compensation” clause which virtually enables the State to withdraw the privilege granted without payment of just compensation is an “unconstitutional condition” imposed by the State adversely affects the life, liberty, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution. The assignment of lands to the exploited and vulnerable sections of the society is neither a formality nor a gratis. The privilege granted is with a view to ensure and protect the rights of the exploited sections of the people to live with human dignity free from exploitation. The privilege or largess once granted acquires the status of vested interest. The policy to assign the government land by the State was obviously designed to protect the socioeconomic status of a vulnerable citizenry; its deprivation would be universally perceived as a misfortune. ……….. Right to Life: 106. The privilege or largess once granted acquires the status of vested interest. The policy to assign the government land by the State was obviously designed to protect the socioeconomic status of a vulnerable citizenry; its deprivation would be universally perceived as a misfortune. ……….. Right to Life: 106. Be it noted, the land by way of assignment is let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, for personal occupation and cultivation by the agricultural labourers and others belonging to weaker sections of the society. It may be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit but not without providing for compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof. The acquisition of such land even for a public purpose without payment of compensation shall be in the teeth of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India. …………. 108. 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. ……………… 109. 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. 6. The above passages from MEKALA PANDU, make it amply clear that the beneficiaries, of alleged State largesse, are Constitutional claimants who cannot be fobbed off on the ground that the rights granted to them, over land, are temporary or subject to the conditions of the grant, to the extent of depriving them of compensation which they are entitled to. It must be held that even farmers granted leases of land under the Common Joint Farming Schemes would be entitled to the benefit of the Judgment, on par with assignees holding DKT pattas. 7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.