S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The meaningful and somewhat intricate questions, which emerge for adjudication in this reference to the Full Bench, merit formulation in the terms following :

(1) Where there is a direct conflict betwixt two decisions of the Supreme Court, rendered by co-equal Benches, which of them should be followed by the High Court and the Court below ?

(2) Whether a person, who was not before the Land Acquisition Officer, can maintain an application for being impleaded as a party under O.1, R.10 of the Civil P.C., in the reference proceedings before the District Judge, under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act ?

2. The long and chequered history of the litigation, giving rise to the question aforesaid, need not be recounted in meticulous detail. It suffices to mention that this arises from the land acquisition proceedings for the construction of a fire brigade station in Patna City itself, commenced sometime in the late nineteen-sixties. Shanti Devi, Opposite Party No. 1, who is the awardee in the case, purchased the land from Anand Ballabh Prasad Yadav by a registered sale deed executed way back on the 27th of June, 1964. In the somewhat protracted and long drawn out acquisition proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, ultimately the 21st of Sept., 1971, was fixed for the payment of compensation to the awardee Shanti Devi. This payment was sought to be obstructed by Anand Ballabh Prasad Yadav, who filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer, primarily purporting to allege that the registered sale deed in favour of Shanti Devi was a Farzi one and that he was fraudulently kept out of the picture in the acquisition proceedings. This petition was, however, rejected. Aggrieved thereby, another petition was moved before the Additional Collector on the 27th of Sept., 1971, which met the same fate and was dismissed on the 6th of Oct., 1971. It is alleged on behalf of opposite party Shanti Devi that Anand Ballabh Prasad then set up his two sons as petitioners and moved an application on the 15th of Oct., 1971 before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming the identical relief. However, these petitions were also rejected in default on the 10th of Jan., 1972. On the 12th of Jan., 1972 payment of compensation money was made to the awardee Shanti Devi after obtaining an indemnity bond.

3. Meanwhile Rajendra Ballabh Prasad had moved a petition dated the 18th of July, 1969 before the Additional Collector, Patna, claiming to be the actual owner of the land and as such entitled to the payment of the compensation money. It seems that delays were endemic in the proceedings and it was not till six years later that the Additional Collector by his order dated the 12th of May, 1975 directed a case to be referred to under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) to the Special Land Acquisition Judge. It is unnecessary to advert to every detail of what has been earlier described as the long and chequered history of this litigation and in this context it would suffice that it was common ground before us that the parties meanwhile had intermittently attempted to carry the proceedings to the High Court as well.

4. In the pending reference proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Patna, petitioners Amar Singh Yadav and Ajay Singh Yadav, sons of Anand Ballabh Yadav, preferred a petition under O.I, R.10 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter called the Code) for being impleaded as a party. Later - on the 10th of June, 1981 - a similar petition and prayer was made on behalf of Anand Ballabh Prasad as well. The learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, Patna, by his exhaustive impugned order dated the 23rd of Jan., 1982, referred to the line of precedent in the Andhra Pradesh and the Calcutta High Courts and placed basic reliance on the Division Bench judgement in State of Bihar V/s. Parsuram Prasad Verma, AIR 1977 Pat 78. Therein it has been held that a person, who has not been a party be