( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the learned single Judge on the ground that there is a conflict between the two Full Benches judgments; therefore, the matter should be referred to Larger Bench.

( 2 ) AT the very outset, we may mention that it is not correct to say that there is a conflict between the two Full (Sic) Benches judgments of this Court, i. e. in 1985 MPLJ 675 : (AIR 1986 Madh Pra 72), B. Johnson Bernard v. C. S. Naidu) and 1987 MPLJ 137 : (AIR 1987 Madh Pra 50), Praschand v. Hemant Kumar ). B. Johnson Bernard (supra) is a judgment by the Division Bench and Paraschand (supra) is a judgment given by the Full Bench. Therefore, it is wrong to say that there was a conflict between two Full (Sic) Benches decisions. In B. Johnson Beranard's case (supra), the Amending Act No. 27/83 and Act No. 7/85 were challenged being ultra vires of Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India and their Lordships in, B. Johnson Bernard's case (supra), held that both the provisions are intra vires and not ultra vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was observed in para 13 of the judgment as under:"p. 13:- Section 23-J specifies the categories of landl