HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.P.Nos.28763 AND 28798 of 2011 Dated: 17-11-2011 W.P.No.28763 of 2011 Between: G.Mohan Goud and others …Petitioners AND Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents. AND W.P.No.28798 of 2011 Between: G.Ravnider Rao …Petitioner AND Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.P.Nos.28763 AND 28798 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Since common question of law is involved, both the writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. These two writ petitions are filed questioning the orders of Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘Act’) at Hyderabad in taking cognizance of the land grabbing cases filed by the State Government against the petitioners herein and o th e rs inter alia contending that the mandatory procedure contemplated under Rule 6 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short ‘Rules’) has not been followed by the Special Court before taking cognizance of the cases. Sri A.Satyaprasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that this Court in Shalivahana Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Ganapathy Co-operative Housing Society[1] held that obtaining a report from the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer is mandatory before the Special Court taking cognizance of the case. A three-judge Bench of the Apex Court in V. Laxminarasamma v. A.Yadaiah[2] approved the ratio laid down by this Court in Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan v. Shahsun Finance Ltd.,[3] about reference of every application under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer before the Special Court or Special Tribunal taking cognizance being mandatory requirement. Therefore, the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court comprising of two-judge Bench in Pesara Pushpamala Reddy v. G.Veera Swamy and others[4] holding that the procedure contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules is not mandatory is contrary to the three-judge Bench and therefore, the Land Grabbing Court committed error in taking cognizance of the offence and the same is liable to be set aside. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue at length. It is now settled proposition of law that when the subsequent Bench of the same Court refers to the earlier judgment and explains the ratio laid down therein, the subsequent judgment, even if it is with less number judges, has to be followed as the same being latest one. The question that fell for consideration before the Apex Court in V. Laxminarasamma (2 supra) was whether the determination of a question of adverse possession would come within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal/Special Court constituted under the Act, has been referred to a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in view of the conflicting decisions of two Division Benches of the Supreme Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P.[5] and N.Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court[6]. While answering the reference, the Apex Court referred to the scheme of the Act with regard to the verification of the application as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules and held that Rule 7 mandates that the Special Court before taking cognizance of the case is to give notice in Form 2-A by publishing it in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. But whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules is mandatory or not was never the issue which fell for consideration before the Apex Court. But the same was the issue in the subsequent Judgment in Pesara Pushpamala Reddy (4 supra), wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the procedure contemplated under Rule 6 is not mandatory. In view of the same, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though there is a subsequent judgment of the Apex Court on this point, this Court is bound to follow the judgment of the Apex Court in V. Laxminarasamma (2 supra) as it is a judgment of three Judge Bench, do not merit consideration. However, this Court in Shalivahana Builders Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra), categorically held that a report as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules is not required to be submitted in respect of the application filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer since the proviso added to sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 in G.O.Ms.No.1076 Rev. (A&R), dated 29.11.1991 provides that the said report is not required to be submitted in respect of the application filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. (emphasis supplied). In view of the above, we do not see any infirmity in taking cognizance of the case by the Special Court. Since no other grounds have been urged, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _______________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) NOVEMBER 17, 2011 TSR [1] 2003 (2) ALT 511 (D.B.) [2] (2009) 5 SCC 478 [3] (2005) 2 ALD 675 (AP) [4] (2011) 4 SCC 306 [5] (2002) 3 SCC 258 [6] (2006) 4 SCC 214