Thus the amended Act was held to be valid prospectively.
609/J 2/81 27, stating therein that the land holders of Vuyyur and Meduru estates cannot companytend that the decision of the Supreme Court in Venkatagiris case, does number bind them merely because appeals were number filed against the judgment in their favour and the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on the land holders whether they were parties to the Judgment or number.
Notwithstanding the finality attached to the order of the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondents, the same number being companyplied with, a fresh writ petition was filed, which was registered as Writ Petition No.
The respondents herein filed a writ petition, which was registered as Writ Petition No.
The State Government issued an administrative instruction in G.O.Ms.
3293 and 3294 of 1975, interim payments number having been made, the respondents approached the High Court again, by filing a fresh writ petition, which was registered as writ petition No.
511 of 1993.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the two writ petitions by Judgment dated 17.6.1977 and following the earlier Judgment in Venkatagiris case, issued a writ of mandamus to make interim payments to the respondents herein in accordance with law laid down in Venkatagiris case.
730 of 1978, praying therein that the earlier order be companymanded to be implemented by a writ of mandamus.
511 of 1993 and the said writ appeal having been allowed, the present appeal has been preferred by the State Government by grant of special leave.
The authorities companycerned were directed to act in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Venkatagiris case.
Under the amended provision, the expression as finally determined under Section 39 was substituted by the expression determined by the Director under Section 39.
A writ petition was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Raja of Venkatagiri, questioning the validity of the ordinance as well as the amendment Act and by Judgment dated 22.9.1971, the High Court declared that Act 3/1971 to the extent it extinguished the vested right of the estate holders to receive interim companypensation till the date of companymencement of the Act was ultra vires of Article 31 2 and number protected by Article 31A or 31B. It further held that interim payments were payable upto the date of the ordinance but number thereafter.
398 and 1385 of 1972.
When this appeal had been listed before a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court on 7.2.2002, the Court felt that the decision of this Court in the case of M s Shenoy Co. Ors vs. Commercial Tax Officer Circle II, Bangalore Ors.,
The present respondents along with several others filed writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking interim payments, which were registered as Writ Petition Nos.
16737 of 1990, claiming interim payments from 1.7.64 to 31.11.1970 and to implement the earlier order in their favour passed by the High Court.
That application was disposed of on 28.3.1978 and the Court issued the direction to implement the earlier order dated 7.6.1977 within one month from the date of the order.
On 3.7.1986, the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Department of Revenue J issued a memorandum, Memo No.
The companypensation due for the estates was numberified on 20.6.1961.
Those two appeals were disposed of by order dated 6.2.1986.
3293 and 3294 of 1975.
The Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Venkatagiris case had been assailed in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
The State Government realising its mistake in numberifying the two estates together, issued two separate numberifications under the Estates Abolition Act, on 1.10.1963 and companypensation for the two estates were determined separately, one on 21.11.64 for Meduru and another on 5.4.1966 for Vuyyur.
on which the companynsel for the State relied upon and the decision of this Court in the case of Authorised Officer Land Reforms vs. M.M. Krishnamurthy Chetty, 1998 9 SCC 138, on which Mr. Rao for the respondents relied upon, perhaps run companynter to each other and as such to resolve the said companyflict, the appeal should be decided by a Bench of three learned Judges, and that is how the appeal has been placed before us.
A brief facts are that the two estates called Vuyyur and Meduru, were numberified under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and the State Government took over the two estates.
730 of 1978.
Against this direction of the learned Single Judge, the State Government filed an application for leave to appeal under Article 133 a b of the Constitution, but the same on being dismissed, the State Government did number approach the Supreme Court and allowed the matter to rest therein.
In this Court the companynsel appearing for the respondents, who were the original writ petitioners before the High Court companysented to the Judgments and orders of the High Court under appeal being set aside, leaving it open to the land holders and others to get the companypensation and interim payments in accordance with the amended provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948.
PATTANAIK,J. This appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed against the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 4.11.93 in Writ Appeal No.
