DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS A.P. AND ORS. versus M.R. APPARAO AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 20-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS A.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
M.R. APPARAO AND ANR. 
MARCH 20, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 
1948: Sections 39, 41, 44, 50 and 54 and Amended Act 3 of 1971. 
A 
B 
Estates-Abolition of-Payment of Compensation-Interim payment C 
payable to the estate holder-Restricted by-Ordinance-Subsequent 
amendment in the Act-Validity of-On challenge High Court held, amendment 
to the extent it extinguished the vested right of the estate holder to receive 
interim compensation till the promulgation of Ordinance was ultravires of 
Article 31(2) of the Constitution-Validity of-Held, Amendments made to the D 
Act are constitutionally valid. 
Article 141 
Scope and ambit of-Law declared-Principle underlying a decision-
When it is not based on. concession alone but based on an independent E 
application of mind, Decision based on concession whether law declared--
Held, it shall be binding on all Courts/parties within the territory of India-
Extent of-To all observations of points raised and decided by the Court. 
-
Plea of per incurium on the ground that certain aspects were not 
' 
considered or relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court-
F 
Held, such plea cannot be accepted 
Law declared-Duty of the High Court to follow the decision-Refusal 
to follow----Consequences-Judgment of High Court which refuses to follow 
the declaration or seeks to revive a decision which had been set aside by 
Supreme Court, is a nullity. 
G 
Article 226--Writ Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Held, is discretionary and 
must be exercised on recognised lines and subject to self-imposed restrictions. 
Issuance of Mandamus-Conditions-Discussed 
661 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant-State took over two estates under the provisions of the Estates 
Abolition Act, 1948 and issued notifications on 28.5.66 indicating the 
procedure determining the final compensation. Subsequently, Ordinance 6 
of 197~ ras promulgated to restrict the interim payments to the estate holder 
till its/fin'al determination by the. concerned authority. The ordinance was 
B replaced by Act 3 of 1971, amending Sections 41, 44, 50 and·54 of the Act, 
with retrospective effect. Under the amended provision, the expression "as 
finally determined under Section 39" was substituted by the expression 
"determined by the Director under Section 39". Raja of Venkatagiri challenged 
the said Ordinance as well as amended Act by filing a Writ Petition. High 
Court declared the amended provisions of the Act as ultra vires of Article 31(2) 
C to the extent it extinguished the vested right of the estate holders to receive 
interim compensation till the commencement of the amended Act. 
D 
Respondents and others filed Writ Petitions for payment of interim 
·compensation. Single Judge disposed qfthe Writ Petitions by ordering interim 
.payments in accordance with the law laid down in Venkatagiri's case. State 
Government preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court but 
State did not approach this Court. However, the Order for payment of interim 
compensation was not complied with. Aggrieved, respondents filed a Writ 
Petition for issuing a Writ of Mandamus for implementation of the order of 
payment of interim compensation. High Court issued order for compliance 
E of the said order within a stipulated time period. 
In the meanwhile, Judgment in Venkatagiri's case has been challenged 
before this Court. The Court reversed the Order passed by the High Court 
thus holding the amendments to the Act constitutionally valid. 
Respondents filed a Writ Petition for interim payment for 
F implementation of the earlier order passed by the High Court in their favour. 
Single Judge dismissed it on the ground that in view of the Judgment in 
Venkatagiri 's case having been set aside by this Court, the earlier decision by 
the High Court in favour of the respondents would not constitute an 
enforceable right and as such a Writ of mandamus cannot be issued. 
G Respondents challenged the Judgment by filing a Writ Appeal, which was 
allowed. Hence the present appeal by the State Government. 
Appellant State relied upon the decision of this Court in Mis. Shenoy & 
Co. and Ors. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore and Ors., and respondents 
relied upon the decision in Authorised Officer (Land Reforrris) v. MM 
H Krishnamurthy Chetty, [1998] 9 sec 138. These two 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.