IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 18051 of 1999 Between: 1 N.Subramaniam Mandada, S/o Narasimulu Manadada, R/o Obanapalli Village, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 P.N.Laxmi Venkateswarlu, S/o Narasimulu , R/o Obanapalli Village, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the constitution of India particularly one in the nature of Writ o Mandamus, declaring the proceedings Roc.F/1258/99 dt 14-8-99 issued by the second respondent herein as arbitrary, unjust and illegal to the extent of the petitioners herein direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the land of Ac.4-88 Cents in Survey No.99/2 and 99/3 of Mangasamudram Revenue Village, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P., after calling for the records and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: The grievance in this writ petition relates to the order of the second respondent dated 14-08-1999, whereby the petitioners were informed that since the lands in their possession were D.K.T. lands (assigned lands), they were entitled for ex-gratia under G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23-12-1993. It is the case of the petitioners that an earlier act on the part of the respondents, in interfering with their possession and enjoyment, had necessitated their invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, that this Court had held that the action of the respondents in seeking to resume the land was arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that it was open to them to take action under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since this order was conﬁrmed in appeal, judgment inter-parties is binding on the respondents and the only way in which the petitioners can be deprived of the lands in question is not on payment of ex-gratia in accordance with the G.O. aforementioned, but only by acquiring the land in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that, since the larger bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Oﬃcer-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v. Mekala Pandu[1], had held that the assignees were entitled for ex-gratia equivalent to the full market value and other beneﬁts on par with the owners of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the said judgment was carried in appeal and, while no stay was granted with regards payment of ex-gratia, the Supreme Court had stayed payment of the other beneﬁts. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that, in view of the orders of the Supreme Court, the petitioners were entitled only for payment of ex-gratia and not for other benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. W.P.No.8016 of 1985, ﬁled by the petitioner’s father and another against the District Collector and other officials, resulted in this Court observing:- “………Any action taken at this distance of time for resuming the lands in an arbitrary exercise, and eﬀects the right of livelihood of the petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly ordered. It is made clear that it is open to the authorities to take action under the Land Acquisition Act. If the case so warrants and then take steps to take possession of the land as per law. No costs. Advocate Fee Rs.350/-…….” When the matter was carried in appeal, the Division Bench, by its order in W.A.No.1460 of 1989 dated 13-10- 1989, observed as under: “…….It is true, as contended by the learned Government Pleader that as per the covenant contained in the D-form patta, the land can be resumed as per the terms mentioned thereunder. It is also true that instead of keeping the land vacant, the Government assigned the land by granting D-form patta and the Government cannot be restrained from resuming the same. Such a resumption may not aﬀect Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in the instant case, the land is sought to be acquired after a period of 30 years, which is a very long period, which will cause great hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioners, who have been enjoying and who have developed the land all these years. This is not like a building or any other structures where improvements are brought out. Particularly when the assignees are also poor people and are living by cultivating the same for the last so many years, which is sought to be acquired for the purpose of house sites to the poor persons, it will be nothing but ‘robbing peter and paying paul’. As stated above, it is something depriving one weaker section and providing the same to another weaker section. The Government may do well by acquiring some other land. We may, however, mention that the view taken in this appeals is limited to the facts of the case only and cannot be applied to all other cases……...” The said judgment required the respondents herein to take action only under the Land Acquisition Act and acquire the land assigned to the petitioners herein. It is not in dispute that the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1460 of 1989 has attained ﬁnality. It is well settled that, even if a judgment is erroneous, or a subsequent judgment of a larger bench of this Court or of the Supreme Court takes a diﬀerent view, it continues to remain binding on the parties to the judgment and no action can be taken contrary thereto. Further, the larger bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu1 had observed that the assignee is entitled for payment of ex-gratia at the full market value in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The law laid down by the larger bench continues to bind till it is set aside by the Supreme Court (Government of A.P. v.N.Rami Reddy [2]) and the mere fact that the order of the larger bench has been stayed in part does not aﬀect the ratio of the judgment or the law laid down therein. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to receive ex-gratia and handover possession of the lands is illegal. The impugned order is, accordingly, quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:22-08-2008 usd [1] 2004(2) ALT 546 (L.B) [2] 2001(1) ALD 443 (DB)