S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 is an independent self-contained provision or is merely a proviso to the preceding sub-section (1) despite the non obstante clause with which it begins has come to be the spinal issue in this reference to a Bench of seven Judges.

2. It is because of a veiled doubt about the correctness of the settled law within this Court by a Bench of five Judges in Karta Ram V/s. Om Parkash, AIR 1971 Punj and Har 423 (FB) and a co-equal Bench in Prithi Pal Singh V/s. Milkha Singh, AIR 1976 Punj and Har 157 (FB), that this reference seems to have been necessitated. Because of this and indeed in view of an implied challenge to the very doctrine of precedent which it involves, the matter calls for an exhaustive and in-depth examination.

3. For issues so pristinely legal, the facts would invariably pale into insignificance. Yet law even in abstract must retain its connection with the terra firma of the factual matrix. It suffices, therefore, to advert to the facts relevant to the legal issue in Kalwa V/s. Vasakha Singh and others, R.S.A. No.67 of 1969. Jagdish Chand was the original owner of the l