Buta Singh (Dead) By Lrs. v. Union Of India .

Order

In Buta Singh (Dead) By Lrs. v. Union Of India . (1994) 5 SCC 560 a two-Judge Bench of this Court after noticing the decision in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3 SCC 737, 1985 Supp (2) SCR 949 and the subsequent decision of this Court in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 174, observed that the decision rendered by another two-Judge Bench of this Court in Chand Kaur v. Union of India (1994) 4 SCC 663 raised a conflict which was needed to be resolved by a Constitution Bench of this Court. That is how this Bench is required to consider whether there is any conflict at all, and if so, whether it was necessary to resolve the same. Having perused the decisions referred to above, including the decision rendered in the case of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 151, (1986) 3 SCR 660, we are of the opinion that the decision rendered by a two-Judge Bench in the case of Chand Kaur (1994) 4 SCC 663 had failed to notice the decisions rendered subsequent to the decision in the case of Bhag Singh (1985) 3 SCC 737, 1985 Supp (2) SCR 949, in particular the decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. (1991) 1 SCC 174 which explained the earlier two decisions. It is, therefore, obvious that the decision rendered in the case of Chand Kaur (1994) 4 SCC 663 is per incuriam, inasmuch as, the attention of the Bench was not invited to a three-Judge Bench decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. (1991) 1 SCC 174 which was holding the field. The decision in Chand Kaur case (1994) 4 SCC 663, thus being per incuriam, does not in fact consciously differ from the decision in the case of Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd (1991) 1 SCC 174. We, therefore, put the matter beyond the pale of doubt by stating that the law as laid down in the decision in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. (1991) 1 SCC 174 is correct and should hold the field; we approve of it and, therefore, the subsequent decision in the case of Chand Kaur (1994) 4 SCC 663 to the extent it conflicts with the view taken in that case cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. We dispose of the reference to this Bench accordingly and the matters will now go back to the appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. (1991) 1 SCC 174, hereby affirmed and approved by us.