The Court made the following Common order: R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. The petitioner herein, who is an Ex-serviceman had been assigned Ac.2.53 cents of land in Sy.No.54/6 of Ganapavaram village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. 2. In the year 2015, the petitioner had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.19185 of 2015, contending that the Revenue Authorities were seeking to dispossess him from his land and for a direction to the Revenue Authorities not to dispossess him from the said land as he had been assigned this land by the Government itself. The petitioner also stated that he had already given a representation, on 11.05.2015, to the Mandal Revenue Officer which was not considered and sought for a direction for consideration of the said representation. It appears that an interlocutory order, dated 29.06.2015 was passed, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above land exceptby following due process of law.This writ petition is still pending and is being disposed of, by way of this common order. 3. The respondents, despite the orders of the Court sought to dispossess the petitioner on account of which the petitioner moved the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of C.C.No.1737 of 2015. The said Contempt Case is also beingdisposed of, by way of this common order. 4. The Tahsildar had thereafter initiated proceedings for resumption of the land, on the ground that the petitioner was not cultivating the said land and was not residing in the same village. It appears that the said land was utilized for the purposes of excavation of a tank, under the Neeru-Chettu programme, sponsored by the State Government. 5. In any event, the Tahsildar, after holding that notice could not be served on the petitioner personally due and served notice by affixing the same on the land. Thereafter, he had passed orders of resumption, dated 22.09.2015. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of resumption, the petitioner had initially approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.41565 of 2017, for payment of compensation or in the alternative for allotment of comparable land in the vicinity of the existing land. Thereafter, he had passed orders of resumption, dated 22.09.2015. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of resumption, the petitioner had initially approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.41565 of 2017, for payment of compensation or in the alternative for allotment of comparable land in the vicinity of the existing land. Subsequently, the prayer in the Writ Petition was amended to include prayer for setting aside the impugned proceedings of 22.09.2015. 7. It appears that an order of injunction was granted in W.P.No.41565 of 2017, dated 02.01.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed C.C.No.3426 of 2018 on the ground that the said interim order, dated 02.01.2018, had been violated. 8. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was assigned the aforesaid Ac.2.53 cents of land on the ground that he was an Ex-serviceman. In such a case, the normal conditions of non-alienation etc., applicable in a DKT patta would not apply to the petitioner. Further, the order of resumption had been passed on the ground that he was not cultivating the land and was not available in the village. He also contends that the order of resumption was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and without serving notice prior to the passing of the impugned order. 9. Sri N. Subba Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent-authorities having highhandedly taken over the land and after having excavated a tank in the land have come up with the order of resumption on grounds which are not tenable. He contends that this was done solely to get out of the liability of payment of compensation or allotment of comparable land. 10. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the entire order of resumption itself is invalid and consequently the petitioner would have to be compensated for the acquisition of his land, even if it is under a resumption order. 10. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the entire order of resumption itself is invalid and consequently the petitioner would have to be compensated for the acquisition of his land, even if it is under a resumption order. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of LAO-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Hyderabad and Others vs. Mekala Pandu , [12004 (2) ALD 451] to contend that even an assigneeis entitled to compensation on par with private patta holders and the compensation has to be calculated by applying the formula set out in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 . 11. The learned Government Pleader, relies upon the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, in W.P.No.41567 of 2017. In this counter affidavit, the District Collector states that though the petitioner had been allotted Ac.2.53 cents of land as an Ex-serviceman, the fact remains that the petitioner had not carried out cultivation in the land for many years. Apart from this, the fact that the petitioner was not residing in the village came to light when the Village Revenue Officer, Ganapavaram tried to serve notices on the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was not residing in the village and his whereabouts are not known and thereafter the Village Revenue Officer is said to have served the notice by affixing it to a stick in the land. Apart from this, notice was also published at the Gram Panchayat Office for intimation to the public. 12. The counter goes on to state that the land had been utilized for the purpose of excavation of a tank in accordance with the guidelines of the State Government, issued under the Neeru-Chettu programme, under various memoranda dated 18.03.2014, 18.06.2014, 23.09.2014 and 25.10.2014 issued by the Commissioner, Rural Development. The counter affidavit also states that the petitioner had filed a grievance petition, on 04.05.2015, before the District Collector, seeking grant of a No Objection Certificate for sale of the said land. 13. The counter affidavit also states that the petitioner had filed a grievance petition, on 04.05.2015, before the District Collector, seeking grant of a No Objection Certificate for sale of the said land. 13. The District Collector, reiterated in his counter, that the petitioner was not cultivating the land and was not in possession and enjoyment of the land due to which he was not eligible for sale of the property and the same was informed to the applicant by the Tahsildar, Rajupalem, by his proceedings dated 22.09.2015, after which, the Tahsildar by his proceedings, dated 22.09.2015, had resumed the land, by way of an order of resumption. 14. The entire controversy in the case, revolves on the question of whether the petitioner had been cultivating the land in question or not and whether the land can be resumed from the petitioner on the ground of non-cultivation. 15. The case of the respondent-authorities is that the petitioner was neither available in the village or elsewhere and that he was not cultivating the land for some years prior to resumption. 16. While the District Collector states the above facts, he has also stated, in his counter that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of No Objection Certificate in May, 2015 and the same was rejected. This obviously belies the contention of the District Collector that the petitioner was not available either in the village or anywhere else. This apparent contradiction is sufficient to reject the contention of the District Collector that the petitioner was not available in the area or that notices could not be served on him because his whereabouts were not known. 17. On the question of cultivation of the land, no material has been placed before this Court nor is there any mention of any such material in the order of resumption. Except a statement that the petitioner was not cultivating the land, no other record has been relied upon for such a conclusion. It may also be noted that the title and possession of the petitioner over the land had been recognized by entries in the revenue records. The grounds of resumption cannot be accepted and consequently, the resumption of land, on the basis of such grounds, would have to be set aside. 18. Yet another aspect that needs to be noticed is the fact that the petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. The grounds of resumption cannot be accepted and consequently, the resumption of land, on the basis of such grounds, would have to be set aside. 18. Yet another aspect that needs to be noticed is the fact that the petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. It is settled law, that assignment of land to an Ex-serviceman, by way of DKT patta would not mean that the Ex-serviceman does not have right of alienation of the property in as much as G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993 permitted Ex-serviceman to sell their lands after expiry of ten years from the date of allotment. For all the aforesaid reasons, it must be held that the order of resumption of the land on the ground of alleged violation of the patta conditions cannot be accepted and the same is accordingly set aside. 19. The present situation of the land is that it has been converted into a tank and cannot be restored to the petitioner. The Government is entitled to resume the land, subject to payment of compensation, in terms of the Judgment of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Hyderabad and Others vs. Mekala Pandu . 20. Consequently, W.P.No.41565 of 2017 is allowed setting aside the order of resumption, dated 22.09.2015, with a further direction to the respondents to resume the land in an appropriate proceeding and upon payment of compensation in terms of the Judgment of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Hyderabad and Others vs. Mekala Pandu . The entire exercise to be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 21. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.41565 of 2017, no further orders are needed in the remaining cases and they are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.