JUDGMENT S. R. BANNURMATH, J. - This appeal is filed challenging the order dated July 10, 2007 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 16305 of 2006 dismissing the writ petition. The petitioner/appellant had challenged the order dated July 3, 2006 under section 28(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act levying certain amount of turnover tax for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05 on the petitioners. The facts disclose that the first petitioner and one Mr. Dinesh Ranka had entered into an agreement whereby it was agreed that the land owner should contribute his land on which the first petitioner agreed to construct a multistoried apartment by way of Joint development agreement. The first petitioner was required to supply all the required materials as well as manpower and it was agreed that 25 per cent of the total built up space belonged to the land owner and the balance of 75 per cent to the first petitioner as the developer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did market the total built up area to the intended purchasers for the aggregate consideration comprising two components, viz., one covering specified portion of the undivided interest in the land and the other the constructed flats. It is contended before the learned single judge as well as before this court that as definition "works contract" referred to is a contract in which property passes for accretion to the owner of the land and by corollary, there cannot be a transfer of property to the person, who is not the owner and non-owner can never be a transferee effecting purchase and he is not liable to pay the turnover tax. In this regard, before this court in this appeal, it is contended that the judgment of the apex court in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka [2005] 141 STC 298 referred to and relied upon by the learned single judge is not applicable to the present facts and circumstance of the case; that in view of the earlier pronouncements of the apex court in the case of State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co., (Madras) Ltd. [1958] 9 STC 353, Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370 and in the light of the pronouncement of the Allahabad High Court Assotech Realty Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2007] 8 VST 738; [2007] TIOL 297-HC-ALL-CT, the learned single judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. The learned senior counsel after arguing at length pointed out that the law laid down in K. Raheja Development Corporation's case [2005] 141 STC 298 in the light of the aforesaid earlier decisions of Higher Constitutional Benches should not have been used by the learned single judge to dismiss the writ petition. In our view, so far as the definition of "works contract" in almost similar situation as in the present case has been well considered by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation [2005] 141 STC 298. The question as to whether that judgment as per article 141 of the Constitution of India is the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country. Prima facie, we find that the facts and circumstances in that case are almost similar to the present case and as such, the ratio laid down in K. Raheja's case [2005] 141 STC 298 and relied upon by the learned single judge is, in our view, just and proper. So far as the other pronouncements are concerned, if the appellant feels that it is necessary to get the pronouncement in K. Raheja's case [2005] 141 STC 298 reviewed, it is open for him to approach the apex court and this court cannot substitute its own findings on the questions since the same has already been decided by the apex court in K. Raheja's case [2005] 141 STC 298. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the case and the same is rejected.