Buta Singh (dead) By Lrs v. Union Of India

Buta Singh (dead) By Lrs v. Union Of India

(Supreme Court Of India)

Special Leave to Petition (Civil) No. 1672 Of 1994 | 21-02-1995

In Buta Singh v. Union of India a two-Judge Bench of this Court after noticing the decision in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and the subsequent decision of this Court in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, observed that the decision rendered by another two-Judge Bench of this Court in Chand Kaur v. Union of India raised a conflict which was needed to be resolved by a Constitution Bench of this Court. That is how this Bench is required to consider whether there is any conflict at all, and if so, whether it was necessary to resolve the same. Having perused the decisions referred to above, including the decision rendered in the case of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, we are of the opinion that the decision rendered by a two-Judge Bench in the case of Chand Kaur had failed to notice the decisions rendered subsequent to the decision in the case of Bhag Singh, in particular the decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. which explained the earlier two decisions. It is, therefore, obvious that the decision rendered in the case of Chand Kaur is per incuriam, inasmuch as, the attention of the Bench was not invited to a three-Judge Bench decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. which was holding the field. The decision in Chand Kaur case, thus being per incuriam, does not in fact consciously differ from the decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. We, therefore, put the matter beyond the pale of doubt by stating that the law as laid down in the decision in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. is correct and should hold the field; we approve of it and, therefore, the subsequent decision in the case of Chand Kaur to the extent it conflicts with the view taken in that case cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. We dispose of the reference to this Bench accordingly and the matters will now go back to the appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd., hereby affirmed and approved by us.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE A. M. AHMADI (CJI)
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE K. S. PARIPOORNAN
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE S. C. AGRAWAL
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE S. P. BHARUCHA
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE (MRS.) SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Eq Citations
  • (1995) 5 SCC 283
  • LQ/SC/1995/257
Head Note

Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Reference to Constitution Bench — Conflict between decisions of two two-Judge Benches of Supreme Court — Held, decision rendered by a two-Judge Bench in Chand Kaur case had failed to notice decisions rendered subsequent to decision in Bhag Singh case, in particular decision in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. case which explained the earlier two decisions — Decision rendered in Chand Kaur case is per incuriam, inasmuch as, attention of the Bench was not invited to a three-Judge Bench decision in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. case which was holding the field — Matter put beyond the pale of doubt by stating that law as laid down in decision in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. is correct and should hold the field and subsequent decision in Chand Kaur case to the extent it conflicts with view taken in that case cannot be said to be laying down the correct law — Matters will now go back to appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd.