Final High Court judgment remains binding; tribunal cannot ignore it because of a later contrary view in another case.

A tribunal cannot refuse to give effect to a final High Court judgment in the same parties' case merely because a later single-judge decision elsewhere takes a contrary view. The earlier judgment had not been set aside by a larger Bench or by the Supreme Court and therefore remained binding and final. A subordinate forum has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over such an order or decline compliance with it on the basis of a later inconsistent view in another matter. The High Court erred in endorsing that refusal, and the correction of the revenue record on the basis of the final judgment was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal could refuse to give effect to an earlier final judgment of the High Court in the appellants' own case on the ground that a later single-judge decision had taken a contrary view, and whether the High Court was justified in affirming that refusal.

Analysis: The earlier High Court judgment quashing the vesting proceedings in the appellants' case had not been set aside by any larger Bench or by the Supreme Court and had therefore attained finality. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over that decision or to ignore it merely because a subsequent decision in another case had taken a different view. A later contrary view in another matter could not authorize the Tribunal to decline compliance with a binding order passed in the appellants' own proceedings. The High Court erred in treating the Tribunal's approach as sustainable.

Conclusion: The refusal to correct the revenue record on the basis of the final High Court judgment was unsustainable, and the appellants succeeded.

---