PAWAR SURESH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, the lis involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 8 in WP.No.25016 of 2024 and respondents No.1 to 7 in W.P.No.28644 of 2024, and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.9 in W.P.No.25016 of 2024 and for respondent No.8 in W.P.No.28644 of 2024, and perused the record.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were granted assignment pattas by the respondents-authorities as part of welfare measure; that the respondents-authorities claiming that the said assigned lands are required for setting up of National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) for public purposes, have resumed the aforesaid assignment pattas granted in their favour; that the authorities while resuming the aforesaid land had paid ex-gratia amount in a sum @ Rs.4,00,000.00 per acre in respect of lands under cultivation and @ Rs.3,25,000.00 per acre in respect of fallow lands; that the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.5,65,000.00 per acre in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders; and that the said action of the respondents-authorities is clearly discrimination and contrary to the law laid by 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.).