Vikramajit Sen, Chief Justice

1. In W.P.No.28263/2004 the learned Single Judge was called upon to decide the question whether a grant of land made to a person whose caste was included in the list of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes subsequent to the Presidential Notification of the year 1950 would nevertheless come within the purview of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’ for the sake of brevity) which became operational on 01.01.1979.

2. The learned Single Judge had analyzed the decision in Obalegappa Versus the Deputy Commissioner ILR 1999 KAR 372 delivered by a Single Bench, as also the three Division Bench judgment in Krishnappa Versus State of Karnataka ILR 1982 KAR 1310, Mahalingappa Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, WA No.2807/1991 decided on 07.11.1995 (unreported) and T.M. Rangaiah Versus Assistant Commissioner Tiptur ILR 2002 KAR 1987. Confronted with conflicting views in the opinion of the Division Benches, the learned Single Judge referred the writ petition before him to a Division Bench, purportedly under Section 9 of the High Court of Karnataka Act (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court Act’) “for clarifying and settling the legal position”. By its Order dated 28.01.2011 the assigned Division Bench, while ostensibly expressing agreement with the Mahalingappaview,yet keeping in perspective the dichotomic opinion of the Division Benches, recommended the constitution of a Full Bench, in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the High Court Act. We have used the word ostensibly since a holistic reading of the Reference Order disclose that both the Division Bench views were respected by the Reference Court. It is in these circumstances, that the legal conundrum has arisen.

3. In the context of the controversy before us, we think it necessary to briefly comment on whether a Reference to the Full Bench was necessary or not? It has already been noted that the learned Single Judge had referred the writ petition itself to the Division Bench in exercise of power under Section 9 of the High Court Act “for clarifying and settling the legal position”. Section 8 of the High Court Act deals with the powers of Single Judge in Revisional jurisdiction and the proviso to sub section prescribes that the Single Judge “may, if he thinks fit, instead of disposing of any case as aforesaid refer such case to a Bench of two Judges for hearing and disposal”. The learned Single Judge was in seisin of a writ petition in contradistinction to a Revision and therefore, Section of the High Court Act was not applicable. It was perhaps for this reason that Section was pressed into operation, but a perusal thereof discloses that the option to refer the legal nodus to a Division Bench does not find enumeration therein. It rationally follows that it was incumbent on the learned Single Judge to decide the dispute involved in the Writ Petition despite being confronted with a chasm in the opinions expressed by two Division Benches. Judicial jurisprudence requires a Single Bench normally to follow and to apply the opinion already expressed by a Single Bench but in the event it is found to be overwhelmingly and irrepressibly unacceptable, it can direct that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice. This situation had not arisen before the learned Single Judge in the present case, but a rather far more piquant position – divergent views of Division Benches. As we have already observed, the learned Single Judge was duty bound to decide the lis spelt out in the Writ Petition. Discernibly, therefore the High Court Rules may require reconsideration since they permit a reference if there is a disagreement with an existing view of a Single Judge, but not if the divergence is in the opinion of Division Benches. In the present case, a perusal of Mahalingappa discloses that, that decision was delivered without an