( 1 ) IN all these various types of cases, such as Appeal Suits, Letters Patent appeals and Writ Petitions etc. , the nature of the dispute is common and is covered by the common question referred to the Full Bench by a Division bench of this Court in its order of reference, which is as follows:- "in all these cases the common question of law that arises for consideration is: Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under Land Acquisition Act when the lands are resumed by the Govt. , particularly when the lands resumed are assigned lands? In this regard there are conflicting views of Division Benches. "in W. P. Nos. 6032 and 6727 of 1988 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair, J. and D. Reddeppa Reddi, J. held that the claimants are entitled to compensation only on compassionate grounds as per Govt. Orders but not under the Land Acquisition Act. In W. A. No. 631/93 another Division Bench consisting of the Hon. the chief Justice and Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J. , held that the claimants are entitled for compensation under Govt. Orders and the provisions of land Acquisition Act have no application. In W. P. No. 1048 of 92 disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court, it was held that the claimants are entitled to compensation under Land Acquisition Act against which an appeal W. A. No. 1066/93 was filed. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Hon. the Chief Justice and Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J. , held that the claimants are entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. "in view of the conflicting decisions of the Division Benches referred to above, we think it just and proper to have an authoritative pronouncement in this matter by a Full Bench. Accordingly, the matter is referred to a Full Bench. "the Office is directed to place the papers before the Hon. the Chief justice for obtaining necessary orders for posting the cases before a Full bench. " it would, thus, appear that the claimants in all these various types of cases are persons who were assignees of Government lands. When these assigned lands were needed by the Government for public purpose, they were either resumed or sought to be acquired by publication of notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the "act"), but without payment of any compensation to the assignees of the lands, or after payment of some compensation as per certain G. O. Ms. Nos. issued by the Government from time to time. The assignees of lands disputed the course adopted by the government and claimed compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 6032 of 1988, Pandikayala Nagaiah and others vs. Government of A. P. and others, decided on 24-1-1994 and it was held that such claimants were not entitled for compensation under the Act, because no proceedings under the Act were initiated in respect of their lands. The Division bench observed: -. . . . . . . . . we are of the opinion that there is no warrant to assume that in the absence of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the Court can award compensation, Solatium, interest, additional compensation, etc. , to persons in occupation of Government lands on D. K. D. pattas, which were granted with the specific condition that the lands could be resumed for any public purpose. "while holding so, the Division Bench also came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled "to compensation on compassionate grounds as per the Government orders, and not to any other amount under the Land acquisition Act or any other statute". With due respect and for the reasons to follow, we are of the view that the decision of the Division Bench in W. P. No. 6032 of 1988 does not lay down correct law, in so far as it goes to say that in such cases, the claimants are entitled to compensation on compassionate grounds as per the Government Orders.

( 2 ) IN