IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25664 of 2009 Between: Aravapalli Maheswara Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Managing Director, A.P. State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None Counsel for respondents 1-3: Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25664 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 10.01.2008 and also in seeking to attach his property for realization of a time barred debt, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned Standing counsel representing the A.P. State Financial Corporation, stated that the petitioner’s representation for one time settlement was rejected on 06.02.2008. It has, however, come out, at the hearing, that the issue raised in this Writ Petition, namely; the entitlement of the respondents to recover a time barred debt by invoking the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others vs. Kalliyanikutty and another[1]. It was held therein that under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, claims, which are time barred on the date when a requisition was issued under Section 69(2) of the said Act, are not “amounts due” and cannot be recovered under the said Act. The learned Standing counsel, however, stated that the judgment of the Supreme Court requires reconsideration by Larger Bench. It is not in dispute that the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 are in pari materia with that of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. So long as the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, holds the field, it is trite that it is the law of the land, which binds all the Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is also not in dispute that the debt in the instant case is time barred. Therefore, following the said judgment this Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.33434 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.02.2011 ES [1] AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1305