(Per V.V.S.Rao, J.)

Two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the same writ petition filed by the appellant, a resident of Kadapa town. It is, therefore, expedient to consider them together.

2. The appellant filed W.P.No.32576 of 1998 seeking a mandamus to respondents, namely, Joint Collector and Mandai Revenue Officer, to pay compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in S.No.601/7 of ChemmumiapetofKadapa town, which had been allegedly assigned to her on 29.08.1977.

By order dated 21.03.2005, learned Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to assign alternative land in S.No.919/1 admeasuring Acs.5.00 in Chinnachowk village near Nanapally village, Kadapa MandaI, pay compensation on' 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) to appellant towards developmental charges and the appellant be permitted to collect the tree trunks on the land. The second respondent was permitted to take possession of the land in S.No.601/7.

3. The appellant filed review W.P.M.P. No.11345 of 1998 seeking review of the order referred to hereinabove. She also filed W.P.No.14369 of 2005 for a mandamus to injunct respondents, namely, District Collector, Joint Collector and Mandai Revenue Officer from alienating Acs.3.500ut of the subject land in favour of M/s.5hriram Social Welfare Trust, Chennai (Shrirar, Trust, for brevity). Learned single Judge dismissed both of them on 02.11.2009 but allowed the appellant to retain an extent 01 Acs.0.10 cents in survey No.601/7 where the appellant raised construction. After the dismissal of the review petition, the appellant filed W.A.No.306 of 2010 on 04.02.2010. She also filed W .A.No.483 of 2010 against the main writ petition.

4. We have heard both the matte together. The main grievance before us is that the writ petition was disposed accepting the proposal made by Government Pleader and that the same do not amount to the appellant's consent for the order. The appellant's Counsel contend that mandamus issued to allot alternative land or to grant compensation was flouted and land which is classified as 'hill' in the revenue records not fit for cultivation is sought to be assigned. He would urge that the order of the learned single Judge in the writ petition is vitiated by misrepresentation and, therefore, ought to have been reviewed. Lastly, he contends that the land was assigned to appellant in 1977 which was brought to cultivation by digging borewells, constructing houses, raising mango garden and therefore the same could not have been resumed by the Government without paying compensation.

5. Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition based on the consent of the Government Pleader as well as the appellant's counsel and, therefore, the same cannot be agitated in writ appeal. She would further urge that while filing review, the appellant denied having given consent and the learned single Judge was not inclined to review the order on this ground, and hence the question of misrepresentation would not arise. According to her, the appellant was already allotted alternative land and was put in possession.

6. The petitioner filed W.P.No.32S76 of 1998 seeking compensation for the assigned land or allotment of alternative land. At that stage, she claimed mandamus based on the earlier Division Bench Order, dated 28.01.1997 in W.P.M.P.No.14925 and 14958 011988. For ready reference, we may extract the short order of the Division Bench:

These two writ petitions are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Land Revenue dated 27-8-88 resuming the land held by the petitioners for the public purpose, namely, to construct office buildings in the lands. It is also stated in the s impugned orders that the petitioners e were not entitled to the given pattas as the wives of the Government Services. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before us the earlier order of the Joint Collector dated 13-7-1982