JUDGMENT : GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singereni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) appearing for the appellants, Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Bandar Srikanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 63 and Sri Katta Radha Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.64 to 66. 2. The present Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants – SCCL being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2206 of 2025 dated 02.07.2025, allowing the Writ Petition directing the appellants herein/respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein to act on the proceedings bearing No.Lr.B1/297/2004 dated 17.10.2023 and Lr.No.B1/297/2004 dated 11.06.2025 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks and upon deposit of the said differential amount, respondent No.3 therein/respondent No.66 herein was directed to disburse the same to the writ petitioners as expeditiously as possible. 3. Appellants herein are respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the Writ Petition, while respondent Nos.1 to 63 herein are the petitioners in the Writ Petition, which was filed assailing the action of the appellants for not making payment to the beneficiaries for the houses acquired in Survey No.536 in the limits of Mangalpalli H/o Jallaram Village of Kamanpur Mandal, Peddapalli District, pursuant to the order passed by the 3 rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector dated 17.10.2023, with a consequential direction to the appellants to make payment to the writ petitioners/beneficiaries along with interest till the date of realization of the amount. 4. The parties herein are referred to as they have arrayed in the Writ Petition. 5. 4. The parties herein are referred to as they have arrayed in the Writ Petition. 5. The case of the writ petitioners, in brief, is that their lands along with structures situated in Survey No.536 of Mangalpalli, Hamlet of Jallaram Village, Kamanpur Mandal, were acquired by the 3 rd respondent for the benefit of the 4 th respondent to facilitate the Open Cast Project-III Project; that the acquisition was initiated by the 3 rd respondent including an extent of 43,563 square yards of assigned land encompassing 591 structures in Mangalpalli Village; that thereafter, the respondents assigned a project number to each house, including those belonging to the petitioners, and paid meagre amount as ex gratia compensation to all the petitioners; however, the houses located on patta lands, covered under Survey Nos.447 and 448, were acquired with compensation paid at an agreed rate and consent awards were passed in their favour. 6. The writ petitioners further contend that the house owners in assigned land under Survey No.536 were paid ex gratia as per the orders in G.O.Ms.No.1307 Rev.(Assign) Department dated 23.12.1993, whereas the house owners in patta lands were paid at the rates approved by the District Level Negotiation Committee; that therefore, the house owners of assigned lands approached the Government through the 2 nd respondent, requesting for compensation at the same rate as was paid to the house owners in patta lands and to provide benefits in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.135 (P.W R&R-A2) Department dated 30.11.2004; that after considering the issue, the 3 rd respondent, basing on the directions of the 2 nd respondent, passed an order approving the payment of differential amount of Rs.4,68,65,340/- towards the value of 591 structures in Mangalpalli Village, ensuring parity with the compensation paid to the owners of patta lands. 7. The main grievance of the writ petitioners was that though the 3 rd respondent on 17.10.2023 determined the payment of the differential amount towards the value of 591 structures situated in Mangalpalli Village and communicated the decision to the 4 th respondent requesting the deposit of the amount for disbursement to the beneficiaries, despite the petitioners making several requests, the respondents authorities, without making payment of adequate compensation, are attempting to dispossess them from their respective houses, which would result in irreparable loss and injury. Hence, the Writ Petition. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition. 8. A counter-affidavit, on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 was filed, wherein, while denying the averments made in the Writ Petition, it was stated that after receipt of the demand dated 13.12.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent for payment of differential amount towards the value of 591 structures, after certain correspondence made by respondent Nos.4 and 5, to waive off the interest part from an amount of Rs.11,21,94,340/-, as the assignees of the Government land are not entitled for payment of interest or additional market value, the 2 nd respondent sent revised letter dated 14.07.2023 requesting to pay the differential amount of Rs.4,68,65,340/-. 9. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that as per the demand issued by the 3 rd respondent vide letter dated 17.10.2023 for payment of differential amount towards the house site value of 591 structures after adding 42.07% of enhancement as per consent award rates, an amount of 63.10/- per square yard is arrived at, which is higher than the consent award rates; and that an amount of Rs,150/- per square yard was paid in the year 2012 as per the ex gratia proposals existing as on the date and if the differential amount demanded by the 3 rd respondent is paid, the effective rate would come to an amount of Rs.63.10/- which is more than the consent award amount paid for the Peddampet Patta lands. 10. It was further stated that after acquisition of lands in Survey No.536 of Jallaram Village, the Land Acquisition Officer vide letter dated 09.02.2012, directed SCCL to deposit the compensation amount as fixed for the lands being acquired and accordingly, amounts have been deposited duly referring to the proceedings that the assignee would not be entitled for making references under Sections 18 and 28-A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and that the assignee will not be entitled for interest or additional market value under the Act. Therefore, it was contended that the villagers of Mangalpalli Village have received all the benefits and hence, they have vacated the village on 23.02.2022 itself and now the OCP-III workings are going on in the village land and hence, the question of attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their houses would not arise and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 11. 11. Learned Single Judge, upon appreciation of the material available on record, had allowed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 12. Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as per the demand issued by the 3 rd respondent – Special Deputy Collector (SDC) LA, vide Lr.No.B1/297/2004 dated 17.10.2023 for payment of differential amount towards the house site value of 591 structures after adding 42.07% of enhancement as per consent award rates, the amount is arrived at Rs.63.10/- per square yard which is more than the consent award rates. 13. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that pursuant to the requisition of the land including the lands in Survey No.536 of Jallaram Village, the Land Acquisition Officer issued proceedings on 09.02.2012 and 09.12.2013 directing the appellant company to deposit the compensation amount fixing the value for the lands which are acquired and accordingly the appellant company has deposited the amounts to a tune of Rs.15,24,34,737/- out of the awarded amount, whereas the said proceedings specifically mentions that the assignee would not be entitled for making a reference under Sections 18 and 28-A of the Act and also would not be entitled for any interest or any additional market value. Therefore, he contended that the learned Single Judge without considering the same allowed the Writ Petition. 14. On the other hand, Sri A.Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Bandar Srikanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 63/writ petitioners, contended that the learned Single Judge had rightly observed that upon the clarification sought by the 4 th respondent, the 3 rd respondent vide letter dated 11.06.2025 stated that the averments made by the 4 th respondent in the letter dated 28.03.2025 would not be accepted and once again requested the 4 th respondent to deposit the differential amount i.e. Rs.4,68,65,340/- for 591 structures at the earliest before the office of the 3 rd respondent, so as to facilitate payment to house owners of Mangalpalli and that the learned Single Judge, accordingly, directed the appellants herein to act upon the proceedings dated 17.10.2023 and 11.06.2025 within a time frame and therefore, prays for dismissal of the present Writ Appeal. 15. We have given our earnest attention to the contentions raised on either side at length. 16. 15. We have given our earnest attention to the contentions raised on either side at length. 16. Upon summarizing the evidence adduced by both sides and the material available on record, the learned Single Judge noted that in response to the clarification sought by the 4 th respondent, the 3 rd respondent vide letter dated 11.06.2025, requested the 4 th respondent to deposit the differential amount in respect of 591 structures. The learned Single Judge further observed that the appellants herein are directed to act on the above letters, deposit the compensation within a stipulated time frame and ensure its disbursement to the writ petitioners. 17. On perusal of the record, in particular, the proceedings dated 11.06.2025 issued by the 66th respondent herein, which make reference to earlier proceedings right from 24.09.2022, 02.11.2022, 04.01.2023, 02.05.2023, 17.10.2023, 10.01.2024, 14.02.2025 and 28.03.2025, it is categorically recorded that vide proceedings dated 04.09.2023, the then General Manager of the appellants had agreed for payment of differential amount Rs.4,68,65,340/- and requested the 65th respondent herein to provide copy of the proceedings along with the list of the claimants eligible for payment of ex gratia towards land and structures in Mangalpalli Village for the said amount as per G.O.Ms.No.1307, adopting package deal rates paid to patta lands. Further, upon clarification of the land value during the acquisition of patta lands in Peddampet and Mangalpalli in 2007, the sales prior to three years from the date of notification i.e. before 2007 were considered and the value of land is fixed for Rs.110/- per square yard in the general award dated 24.04.2010. In view of the above, after adding up the escalation from 2007 to 2013, the value of Rs.150/- was adopted for the Government assigned lands in Mangalpalli. Therefore, the assertions made in the letter dated 28.03.2025 are untenable and once again requested to deposit the differential amount of Rs.4,68,65,340/- for 591 structures in favour of the unofficial respondents. 18. Accordingly, upon due consideration of the material on record, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to comply with the proceedings dated 17.10.2023 and 11.06.2025. Since the families occupying 591 houses have already been vacated the premises and had, over the years, developed a deep sense of attachment and emotional intimacy with their place of residence, they cannot be deprived of reasonable compensation. Since the families occupying 591 houses have already been vacated the premises and had, over the years, developed a deep sense of attachment and emotional intimacy with their place of residence, they cannot be deprived of reasonable compensation. Their displacement, coupled with the loss of long- established homes and community ties, justifies the grant of adequate and fair compensation in accordance with law. Therefore, upon careful consideration of the material on record and the findings of the learned Single Judge, we find no legitimate or compelling grounds that warrant interference with the order impugned. 19. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to extend the time for compliance with the directions of the learned Single Judge, requiring the appellants to act upon the aforesaid proceedings and deposit the differential amount, to a further period of eight (08) weeks from today. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. All connected applications shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.