Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 1009
Supreme Court of India
S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Cement Corpn. of India Ltd.
Versus
Purya & Others
Civil Appeal No. 6986 of 1999 with Civil Appeal No. 6987 of 1999
Decided On : 31-07-2001
For the Appellant:Mukti Chaudhry, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N. Ganpathy, G.V. Chandrasekhar, P.P. Singh, Advocates.
Conflicting interpretations of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act by two benches of equal strength necessitate a referral to a Constitution Bench for resolution.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Section 51-A - Interpretation and construction - Conflict between decisions of two Benches of three learned Judges each - Where a construction placed upon a section in one decision is very different from that placed in another decision by a Bench of equal strength, the matter requires to be heard by a Constitution Bench.
Facts of the case:
Appeals were heard concerning the interpretation of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It was observed that a three-Judge Bench had previously provided an interpretation of the said section which was subsequently sought to be reconsidered. Another Bench of three learned Judges had adopted a construction of the same section that was significantly different from the previous interpretation.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that because two Benches of equal strength had provided divergent interpretations of the statutory provision, the appeals required to be heard by a Constitution Bench.
Issues: Whether the conflicting interpretations of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act by two benches of equal strength necessitate a referral to a Constitution Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: When there is a conflict in the construction of a statutory provision between two decisions delivered by benches of equal strength, the matter should be referred to a Constitution Bench for a definitive resolution.
Result: Papers placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- reference to larger bench
-
property law
-
land acquisition
- interpretation of section 51-a of the land acquisition act
-
land acquisition
Judgment :
The appeals come to be heard by this Bench pursuant to the order of a Bench of two learned Judge passed on 29th November, 1999. The order states that the appeal is to be placed before a Bench of three learned Judges because the observations in paragraph (8) of the decision of a three-Judge Bench in Special Deputy Collector & Anr. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors. (1997 (6) S.C.C. 41), regarding the interpretation of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, are sought to be re-considered.
We have read the afore-mentioned observations. We have also read the judgment of another Bench of three learned Judges in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V.Narasaiah (2001 (3) S.C.C. 530), which appears to place upon Section 51-A a construction very different from that placed in the observations in Kurra Sambasiva Rao. We are, therefore, of the view that these appeals now require to be heard by a Constitution Bench.
The papers shall be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
