ORDER : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. 1. Heard Sri D.Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “For the aforementioned reasons, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records relating to the order of the 4th respondent issued in Rc.No.165/2022/B dated 28.12.2022 and quash the same and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring an extent ofAc.28.00 cents of land in Sy.No.329 of Kalyandurg Village and Mandal, Anantapuramu District and pass such orders or further orders as the Hon ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Since the Endorsement passed by the Tahsildar dated 28.12.2022 bearing Rc.No.165/2022/B (Ex.P-1) is under challenge, this Court is required to examine the correctness of the said Endorsement. The circumstances in passing the impugned Endorsement would indicate that the Division Bench of this Court had issued certain directions in W.P.(PIL).No.108 of 2022 and batch vide Order dated 20.10.2022 (Ex.P-8). The W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022 is also a part of the same batch of cases. The prayer in W.P.(PlL)No.105 of 2022 is extracted here under; “this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in not taking any action for preventing the occupation and filing of the take named as Subedar Kunta from illegal occupation and filing with the waste mud for the purpose of converting the lake into house site plots by the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and others admeasuring Ac 92.81 gts in Sy. No. 329 situated at Kalayanadurgam Municipality limits, Anantapur District which is illegal, arbitrary and also clear violation of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012 and also against Article 21, 48A and 51A(g) of The Constitution of India and Consequently (a) To direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to protect the Subedar Kunta lake from the illegal encroachers in particularly respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and take necessary steps to restore the Subedar kunta by removing the filled mud (b) To direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to protect the Subedar Kunta lake from the illegal encroachers in particularly respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and take necessary steps to restore the Subedar kunta by removing the filled mud (b) To direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries of Subedar kunta so to prevent from the illegal encroachers (c) To direct the as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to take steps to file a complaint and register the cases against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and others who have occupied the Subedhar kunta for the offence under the section 430 of IRC and pass such orders or further orders as the Hon’ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe case” 4. The 1st paragraph of the Order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(PIL)No.108 of 2022 and batch of matters which are filed as Public Interest Litigations would indicate that the said Public Interest Litigations have been initiated, having been aggrieved by the inaction of the State and its authorities in removing the encroachments over the various subject Government lands, Tank lands and Road Poramboke. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Court issued the following directions: “(i) The executive authority, i.e., Panchayat Secretary, of the respective Gram Panchayats shall identify the Gram Panchayat lands/tank lands/road poramboke, which are unauthorizedly occupied/encroached, and take steps for removal of such encroachments by issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rules of 2011. This complete exercise shall be done within a period of six months from today. (ii) So far as the encroachments over the lands concerning the Municipalities/Forest Department/Revenue Department are concerned, even if no separate Rules have been framed prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of removal of encroachments over those lands, the officials of the concerned Departments, I.e., the Departments of Municipal Administration, Forest and Revenue, shall also undertake and complete the exercise of Identification of unauthorized occupations/encroachments over the lands belonging to their respective Departments, within a period of two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments by following the principles of natural justice, I.e., Issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/ encroachers, within a further period of fourmonths. ” 5. ” 5. W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022 was filed by one Sri Madineni Umamaheswar Naidu complaining on the inaction on the part of Officials in treating the land in Sy.No.329 of Kalyandurg Village and Mandal as a water-body and to remove the encroachments made in the said land. In pursuance of these directions of the Division Bench, the respondent-authorities have issued Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2022 (Ex.P-2). The said Show Cause Notice would also indicate that it was issued for implementing the directions rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(PiL)No.105 of 2022 dated 20.10.2022. Several parties, who were in illegal encroachment of the ‘Subedar Kunta’ which is a water-body, have been issued the said Show Cause Notices which includes the present Writ Petitioners too. The Writ Petitioners herein have submitted explanation on 26.12.2022 (which is not placed on record), The Impugned Endorsement would indicate that the Tahsildar has considered the explanations submitted by the Writ Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 dated 26.12.2022 and had passed final order. The facts mentioned above would indicate that in compliance with the directions of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dated 20.10.2022 passed in W.P.(PIL)No.108 of 2022, in which, W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022 was also considered, the Tahsildar of Kalyandurg Mandal (Respondent No.4) has issued the Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2022 (Ex.P-2). The said Show Cause Notice itself would indicate that it was issued in compliance with the directions of the Division Bench in the Public Interest Litigations (W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022). The Writ Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have already submitted their explanations on 26.12.2022. The Tahsildar, having considered the same, had passed the impugned Endorsement. 6. The Writ Petitioners have stated in Para No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition as follows: “All of us have given the property for development to Sampada Avenues Pvt. Ltd., for the purpose of laying House plots and at the time of levelling of the land. At that time, a Public Interest Litigation was filed in W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022 in this Hon’ble Court and in the said Public Interest Litigation, two person namely B.Nagaraju and one M. Siva Shankar Naik, who are no way concerned with the property in Sy.No.329 were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. At that time, a Public Interest Litigation was filed in W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022 in this Hon’ble Court and in the said Public Interest Litigation, two person namely B.Nagaraju and one M. Siva Shankar Naik, who are no way concerned with the property in Sy.No.329 were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. On coming to know of the same, we have filed an application to implead us as parties to the proceedings and before implead petition was taken up for hearing, this Hon’ble Court passed a common order in a batch of writ petitions including the above PIL.” 7. The above extract would indicate that during the course of hearing of W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022, the Writ Petitioners have filed an application to implead themselves as parties to the proceedings, whereas before the implead petition came to be heard, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed Common Order in the Batch of the Writ Petitions including W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022. 8. It appears that it is the case of the Writ Petitioners that they have diligently taken steps to implead themselves in W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022, but the Division Bench disposed of the W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022 along with the other PILs’ in the batch without impleading and without hearing the Writ Petitioners. However, since the Judicial Order binds the Executive, the Executive v/z., the Tahsildar, in due deference to the same, has issued the Shqy^,Cause Notice on 23.12.2022 to the Writ Petitioners and had^sued the final Endorsement (impugned herein) on 28.12.2022 after having considered the explanations submitted by the Writ Petitioners dated 26.12.2022. It cannot be said that the Writ Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned Endorsement since these proceedings have been initiated basing on the directions rendered by the Division Bench in W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022 on 20.10.2022. Until the order passed by the Division Bench is either recalled or modified in whatever manner, the Executive would have no other option but to implement the directions of the Court diligently and sincerely to the letter and spirit of the order. 9. If the Writ Petitioners are aggrieved of the Order passed by the Division Bench on the ground that the said Order was passed behind their back, the Writ Petitioners had the liberty to approach the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceedings in so far as the directions given by the Division Bench is concerned. 9. If the Writ Petitioners are aggrieved of the Order passed by the Division Bench on the ground that the said Order was passed behind their back, the Writ Petitioners had the liberty to approach the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceedings in so far as the directions given by the Division Bench is concerned. Filing the Writ Petition before the Single Judge challenging the endorsement in a case of this nature is of no avail in as much as the Single Judge can never modify or vary with the Orders passed by the Division Bench in any manner. Judicial Discipline demands that Single Judge shall not interfere with the directions rendered by the Division Bench since the directions rendered by the Division Bench bind the learned Single Judge. This legal proposition is fortified by the law laid down by the Apex Court In Smt Biran Devi Vs. Sechu Lai and Others: 2000 SCO OnLine ALL 770: (2001) 45 ALR 98, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the issue of judicial discipline that ought to have been exercised by a Single Judge with regard to the issues pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench, held at Para No.4 as under; “4. Time and again the Apex Court has reiterated what judicial discipline is required to be maintained by a Single Judge or Division Bench, while considering the judgments rendered by the High Court through its larger Benches. A note of caution has been issued time and again thatjudicial discipline requires that a learned Single Judge or a Division Bench should not proceed to take a view different from what had already been laid down by the larger Benches and If there is any doubt then reference to a larger Bench Is required. One of such judgments Is State of U.P. C.L Agarwal [1995 Allahabad Civil Journal 1018.]. The five Judges Constitution Bench, in this regard, had observed thus. “We are dismayed that the Division Bench hearing the said writ petition should have proposed to examine the issue “notwithstanding the aforesaid pronouncement of the Full Bench If the judgments in the cases of Supreme Court judgment Employees' Welfare Assn. The five Judges Constitution Bench, in this regard, had observed thus. “We are dismayed that the Division Bench hearing the said writ petition should have proposed to examine the issue “notwithstanding the aforesaid pronouncement of the Full Bench If the judgments in the cases of Supreme Court judgment Employees' Welfare Assn. [ (1989) 4 SCC 187 : AIR 1990 SC 334 .] and H.C. Puttaswami [1991 Supp (2) SCC 421: AIR 1991 SC 295 .], were cited and the respondents to the said writ petition submitted that the Full Benchjudgment was erroneous by reason thereof the proper course for the Division Bench to follow, if it found any merit in the submission, was to refer the said writ petition to a Full Bench. Judicial discipline requires that a Division Bench should not examine de-novo an issue that is concluded bythe decision of a Full Bench of that High Court”. and in Union of India Vs. Jaiswal Coal Co., Ltd., and Others : [ (1999) 5 SCC 733 , the three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at Para No.4 as under; “4. We are rather concerned to note that Writ Petition No. 823 of 1999 [Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Mohanlalganj] has been entertained by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. That writ petition is directed against the auction-sale of House No. 546-547, Sector E, Hind Nagar, Kanpur RoadLucknow and seeks an order to the effect that the auction-sale be not confirmed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has noticed. In the interim order made on 30-3-1999, that auction being conducted under orders of this Court and that the was auction of the house was pending in this matter concerning Court. How then a writ petition could be entertained in the High Court is not understandable. Judicial discipline required the High Court not to entertain any such petition, when the proceedings were pending in this Court in respect of the subject-matter of the The parties should have been asked to approach this case Court, if so advised. The ^High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in the fact situation. We need say nothing further on this aspect except to record our displeasure.This order shall be brought to the notice of the High Court. ” 10. The ^High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in the fact situation. We need say nothing further on this aspect except to record our displeasure.This order shall be brought to the notice of the High Court. ” 10. This apart, the probable reason for the Writ Petitioners for not approaching the Division Bench can perhaps be for another reason. As indicated earlier, W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022 was filed by one Sri Madineni Umamaheswar Naidu (not impleaded in this Writ Petition).The prayer in the said PIL (W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022) is already extracted in Para No. 2 supra, which directly deals with the subject land which is involved in the present Writ Petition. One plausible inference that can be drawn under the present circumstances for the Petitioners not approaching the PIL Bench and for filing the present Writ Petition can perhaps be to avoid the PIL Petitioner (in W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022) and also Sri B. Nagaraju and Sri Siva Shankar Naik in contesting against the Writ Petitioners. The names of Sri B. Nagaraju and Sri Siva Shankar Naik are already mentioned in the Para No.5 of the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition (extracted supra in Para No.5) indicating that the said persons have also filed an application for impleadment in W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022. 11. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the Single Judge ought not to pass any order that may either directly or indirectly frustrate the order (directions) of the Division Bench dated 20.10.2022 in W.P.(PIL)No.105 of 2022. In this view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is not only devoid of any merit but is also an abuse of process. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, Writ Petitioners are granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for seeking any legal remedies, if so advised, subject to all just exceptions. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.