JUDGMENT :

BILAL NAZKI, J.:— A decree was passed in OS. No. 90 of 1981 declaring that plaintiffs are entitled to possession and enjoyment of the suit land until evicted by due process of law. The Government was also ordered to pay Rs. 47,786/- towards damages for use and occupation of suit land for three years, and Rs. 15,562/- towards subsequent damages. The plaintiff as well as defendant both filed appeals in this Court. The plaintiff's appeal was numbered as A.S. No. 2541 of 1986 and the appeal filed by the State was numbered as A.S. No. 697 of 1985. Unfortunately only the appeal No. 2541 of 1986 was listed before a Division Bench of this Court and it was not pointed out to the Division Bench by either of the parties that another appeal challenging the same judgment has been filed by the State and was pending in the Court. The Division Bench delivered the judgment on 17-7-1996. It allowed the appeal and granted compensation of Rs. 2,700/- per acre with interest @ 4%. Thereafter the appeal No. 697 of 1985 was listed before the learned single Judge of this Court on 10-6-1999. The learned single Judge found that the Division Bench had not been informed about the Full Bench judgment reported in State of A.P. v. P. Peda Chinnayya, 1996 (2) ALD 1215 : 1997 (1) ALT 498, therefore he referred the matter to the Division Bench. When it came before the Division Bench the Division Bench was of the opinion that, since already there is a judgment between the same parties on the same issue therefore it could not be appropriate for the Bench to pass any orders in the appeal and therefore referred the matter to the Full Bench with a direction that the record of A.S. No. 2541 of 1986 be also placed before the Full Bench. When the matter came up before the Full Bench on 20th September, 2001 the Full Bench referred it to the larger Bench. The order of reference is important as it lays down the parameters within which this reference is to be answered. The order is reproduced.

“Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that although the Division Bench was bound by the Full Bench judgment, the effect thereof in this appeal is required to be determined. Further more, we are prima facie of the opinion that part of the law laid down by the judgment of the Full Bench that the plaintiffs would be entitled to the market value together with interest may not be correct, particularly, in view of the fact that the right of assignee of the Government land is subordinate to the State. The lands assigned under such patta are resumable. In that view of the matter, they may not be treated to be owners of the lands so as to claim entire compensation calculated at the market value for acquisition thereof under the Land Acquisition Act.

We are therefore of the opinion that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench.”

2. Now the only question before this Court is, whether persons who are dispossessed from assigned lands are entitled to compensation on market rates, or, are they at all entitled to any compensation or not and if they are entitled, are they entitled to the market rates of the land on the date of requisition of the land. There were certain contradictory judgments on this issue and the matter was placed earlier before a Full Bench and the Full Bench decided the issue by a judgment in State of A.P. v. P. Peda Chinnayya (supra).

3. Before answering the question whether the Full Bench judgment needs reconsideration or not, it will be pertinent to note that it is not open for this Court to pass any judgment in Appeal A.S. No. 697 of 1985 on the well settled principles of resjudicata. However, a review petition has been filed in AS No. 2541 of 198.6. Although this review petition has been filed after a very long delay but in order to lay down the law correctly we are allowing the condonation delay application and the application for review of the earlier judgment passed in AS No. 2541 of 1986.

4. Many judgments have been cite