THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10980 of 2002 ORDER: The proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 23.04.2002 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner claims that his father was assigned an extent of Ac.10.00 cts of dry land in Sy. No.667 under the Freedom Fighters quota. Subsequently a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner’s father on 18.06.1991 seeking to cancel the assignment in respect of Ac.5.00 cts on the ground that land was allotted to him in excess of his entitlement. The petitioner’s father is said to have submitted his explanation to the show cause notice without considering which the 3rd respondent is alleged to have passed an order canceling the assignment of Ac.5.00 cts. Questioning the said order, the petitioner’s father filed W.P. No.1133 of 1991 and a Division bench of this Court, by order dated 13.04.1997, held that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not have jurisdiction to pass the order as he was not an officer contemplated under Section 166-B of the A.P. Telangana Area Land Revenue Act, 1317 fasli. Curiously the Mandal Revenue Officer has again passed the impugned order. The plea taken in defence of having issued such an order is that the Mandal Revenue Officer was instructed to do so by the Revenue Divisional Officer who, in turn, was instructed by the District Collector to take action for cancellation of the assignment to an extent of Ac.5.00 cts. The order of this Court in W.P. No.1133 of 1991 dated 13.04.1997 is a judgment inter-parties and relates to the very same land which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition. The said order is binding inter-parties in as much as the said order has attained finality. It is not, therefore, open to the Mandal Revenue Officer, who was a party to the earlier Writ Petition, to now justify passing the impugned order on the plea of having been instructed to do so by the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer. As to how these authorities could have issued such a direction, which is in flagrant violation of the order of the Division bench of this Court, defies reason. Though this Court considered imposition of exemplary costs on the 1st respondent, directing him to pay such costs from out of his pocket, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would state that the officer would be suitably advised to desist from passing such orders. While the respondents are not precluded from taking action in accordance with law, such an action in view of the earlier Division bench judgment cannot be taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned. However the competent authority, under the provisions of the Act, is entitled to take action in accordance with law. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. Leaving it open to the 2nd respondent, if they so choose, to take action in accordance with law, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:03.02.2011 MRKR