A perusal of the record available would show that the Mandal Revenue Officer issued the show cause notice to the petitioners on 07.04.2007. The petitioners submitted explanation. After considering the same, the first respondent came to the conclusion that the objection is not valid, and passed the impugned order. Insofar as the procedure adopted by the Mandal Revenue Officer is concerned, the same is fair and is in accordance with law. A perusal of Condition No.17 in D-Form Patta would show that “in the event of assigned land if required for a project or any other public purpose, the land will be resumed and no compensation will be paid to the assignee”. Therefore, while resuming the land for Public purpose or for a purpose of Project, there is no legal requirement for the revenue authority to specify the public purpose. The patta was granted to the father of the petitioners by the Tahasildar, and therefore, the submission that the Mandal Revenue Officer is not competent to resume the land is baseless. Even if alternative land is available, the same does not bar or preclude the Mandal Revenue Officer from resuming the land. Further, the petitioners have not given any details of the availability of the alternative land, except making vague allegations. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. However, before parting with the case, this Court observes that as held by the Larger Bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu (supra), “assignees of Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of land ‘in case of resumption of land’”. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for full compensation as per ratio in Mekala Pandu (supra), subject to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal filed against Mekala Pandu (supra).
