K VENKA REDDY Vs. L A O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the petitioner is that he holds land less than the ceiling area to which he is entitled under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. But a part of his holding has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act read with Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 1976 whereby compensation payable for the land acquired is permitted to be paid in instalments. That provision was challenged as unconstitutional in a batch of writ petitions. A Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3353/76 and batch judgment dated 26-9-1978 held that Section 3(4) of the Amendment Act which provides for payment of compensation in instalments to be violative of the Fundamental Rights. The Full Bench held that "Payment of compensation in instalments works out to payment of compensation which is less than the market value. Section 3(4) of the impugned Act of 1976 is Unconstitutional to the extent of acquisition of lands which came within the purview of Clause (2) of Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution of India. That is to say, compensation cannot be paid in instalments for lands acquired from a farmer who holds lands below the ceiling limit and personally cultivates them. For acquisition of other lands, however, this inhibition and vice do not exist in Section 3(4)".

(2.) When the matter came up before our learned brother Kodanda-ramayya, J., he felt a doubt whether, having regard to the fact that the judgment of the Full Bench is the subject-matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court and the operation of the said judgment is suspended, the dicta laid down by the Full Bench would be binding on this Court and has to be followed, and referred the matter to the Bench.

(3.) We are of the view that when a judgment of the High Court is the subject-matter of an appeal and the said judgment is suspended, the only effect of such suspension is that mat judgment cannot be executed or implemented. But so long as the Full Bench judgment stands, the dicta laid down therein is binding on all Courts including Single Judges and Division Benches of this Court. The dicta laid down therein cannot be ignored unless the Court after hearing a particular case doubts the correctness of the dicta and thinks it appropriate that it should be reconsidered. We, however, do not feel any such doubt that insofar, as the acquisition of the land of a person, whose holding is less than the ceiling area and is personally cultivating the same, is concerned, he is entitled to the payment of market value in lumpsum. Payment of compensation in instalments is violative of the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution.