The ratio of the Full Bench in Indo Swiss Time Limited's case (AIR 1981 Punj and Hry 213) still holds the field and the company or firm for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired under the Act was not a person interested and an application on its behalf for being impleaded as a party to the proceeding was not legally maintainable.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Would one of the ratios in the Full Bench judgment of Indo Swiss Time Limited V/s. Umrao. AIR 1981 Punj and Hry 213 still hold the field-is the significant question that has necessitated this reference to the larger Bench.

2. To appreciate the aforesaid question in its correct perspective. a somewhat detailed notice of the facts is called for. M/s. Kulbhushan Kumar and Co.- the writ petitioners, had challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by a notification (annexure P/3), under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act ). for the public purpose of the expansion of Saluja Spinning and Weaving Mills for the manufacture of cotton yarn. anti the subsequent declaration under Sec.6 of the Act vide notification (annexure P/5). dt. March 17/18. 1982. Later ICI/s. Saluja Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., for whose benefit the acquisition was to be made. filed the present application under O.1. R.10 of the Civil P. C. for being impleaded as a respondent in the Civil Writ Petition. This application was opposed on behalf of the writ petitioners. Undoubtedly, the matter was concluded against the applicants by the Full Bench in Indo Swiss Time Ltd. s case (supra). This was indeed so noticed by the learned Judges of the referring Bench in the following terms:-

"In view of the above Full Bench decision the application filed by the Spinning Mill could have been disposed of in terms of the ratio of the Bench decision."

However, reliance on behalf of the Spinning Mills was sought to be placed on a short observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 5389 of 1981 (Punjab United Pesticides and Chemicals Limited V/s. Puran Singh) decided on Jan. 11, 1982. In view of the affirmance therein the earlier judgment in Himalaya Tiles and Marbles (P.) Limited V/s. Francis Victor Courtinnom). AIR 1980 SC 1118. the referring Bench observed that a question had arisen, whether on the specific point, the Full Bench decision is Indo Swiss Time Limited s case (AIR 1981 Punj and Hry 213) (supra) was to be followed as a correct view of the proposition of law and therefore. suggested an authoritative consideration of the matter by a larger Bench.

3. Inevitably, one must first advert to the true ratio of the Full Bench in Indo Swiss Time Limited s case (supra). Therein. after an exhaustive consideration five clear-cut propositions were laid down. It was unanimously held:-

(i) Where two co-equal Benches of a superior court were in headlong conflict, it is incumbent for the courts below to examine and follow that judgment which lays down the law more correctly and accurately:

(ii) the fact that one or the other of the conflicting judgments have been rendered earlier or later, was irrelevant and extraneous to the issue:

(iii) that the ratio of the judgments of the co-equal Benches of their Lordships in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad V/s. Chandu Lal Shamal Das Patel, (1970) 1 SCWR 183: and the Himalaya Tiles and Marbles (P) Limited V/s. Francis Victor Courtinnom, AIR 1980 SC 1118, were directly in conflict with each other and were irreconcilable: Further, it was held by majority-

(iv) that the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmadabad (supra) was in consonance with the earlier long line of precedent in the High Courts and laid down the law more accurately and correctly and the same should be followed in preference to the view in Himalaya Tiles and Marbles Ltd., and

(v) that the company or the firm for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired under the Act was not a person interested and an application on its behalf for being impleaded as a party to the proceeding was not legally maintainable.

4. For clarity s sake, it must be Pointed out that only propositions Nos. (iv) and (v) aforesaid are in issue and the threshold question is - whether these considered ratios of the Full Bench in Indo Swiss Times Limited s case (AIR 1981 Punj and Hry 2