The decision of a full bench is binding on a Division Bench, and a larger bench is only necessary if the full bench doubts the correctness of its own decision.

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

The Division Bench in its Order of Reference dated 19.09.2007 has passed the following Order:

"Therefore we consider it a fit case to be referred to the Larger Bench. Hence, the registry is directed to place the papers before The Honourable Chief Justice to refer the matter to a Larger Bench to consider the above issue."

2. The issue relates to the question whether the decision of the Full Bench reported in 2007 (2) MLJ 706 [R. PARI vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADI DRAVIDAR WALFARE, PASUMPON MUTHURAMALINGA THEVAR DISTRICT AND ANOTHER] conflicts with the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 [STATE OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS vs. ANANTHI AMMAL AND OTHERS] and AIR 1968 SC 432 [ABDUL HUSSAIN vs. STATE OF GUJARAJ] as well as the decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 497 [KALUMIYAKARIMMIYA vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS]. In the opinion of the Division Bench, neither Sec.5(A) nor any other provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 contemplates, second opportunity to be given to the land owners. The Division Bench also held that in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 upholding the validity of the said Act except for Section 11(1) of that Act, insofar as it provided for payment of compensation in instalments, the full bench decision runs counter to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore, the constitution of a larger bench is necessitated to decide the issue. Though, no specific question was referred for the consideration of a Larger Bench from the order of reference of the Division Bench dated 19. 2007, we discern that the ratio laid down by the full bench decision reported in 2007 (2) M.L.J. 706 requires reconsideration.

3. The questions that were posed for consideration before the earlier full bench were as under:

(i) Is it necessary for the Collector to give a personal hearing to the owner in the context of his objections and the remarks of the Tahsildar?

(ii) Is the owner entitled to a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar or not?

(iii) Should the Collector record his reasons in his order while dealing with the objections of the owner?

4. From what has been answered by the full Bench, it is clear that after the initial enquiry held by the authorized officer and his report, no further personal hearing or enquiry need be made by the District Collector. Though the full bench made it clear that the land owner should be furnished with a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorized officer, mere non-furnishing of such report would not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and the question of prejudice to the land owner has to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances relating to that case. Further it was held that the non-communication of the reasons of the District Collector while considering the objections of the land owner in the order communicated to him by itself would not vitiate the proceedings, so long as the records reveal that there was application of mind by the District Collector to the objections of the land owner and such objections were rejected for reasons which weighed with the District Collector.

5. When we peruse the decision of the full bench we find that the full bench made a careful analysis of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 (Ananthi Ammal Case) and was also fully conscious of the ratio desidendi of the said decision while answering the reference made before it. The full bench did not agree with the conclusion of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1998(1) CTC 281 [THIRUMATHI PUSHPA BAI BAINSINGH vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI], in having held that a further personal enquiry/hearing before the collector was contemplated and that such a conclusion would result in duplication of enquiry i.e., one by the authorized officer and another by the District