AMRESHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The authorities issued a notification under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act, 1965 dated the 17th of August, 1978 proposing to acquire a portion of the petitioner's land in survey No. 10 of San Hosur village of Manvi Taluk for the purpose of laying the channel to reach water to the land of the third respordent. This was followed by a notification under Section 15(2)of the said Act dated 17-10-1978. The petitioner filed his objections which were considered by the Assistant Commissioner after giving a hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter an order came to be made under Section 16(1) of the Karnataka Irrigation Act on the 2nd of January, 1979 Exhibit 'C' proposing to acquire the notified portion of the land. It is the acquisition in so far as it-pertains to land of the petitioner that is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) When the matter came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge felt that it is difficult for him to follow the Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in 7972 (2) Mys. Law Journal 265 between Kalappa v Deputy Commissioner, Mandya and another. It is therefore that this case has been referred by the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench.

(3.) We would like to point out at the out set that the learned Single Judges are bound by the decisions of the larger Benches such as the Division Benches and Full Benches. The learned Single Judge has to follow the decision of the larger Bench. That is the position even if the learned Single Judge is inclined to take a view different from the one taken by the Division Bench That is the discipline which all of us are subject to. If the decision is rendered by the learned Single Judge the parties are entitled to take up the matter the appellate Bench and then canvass before the Division Bench about correctness of the view taken by another Division Bench. It would be for the Division Bench, if it is persuaded, to doubt the correctness of the view taken by another Division Bench. In that event it has to formulate the necessary points of law and refer the same to the Full Bench for consideration. We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that reference to the Division Bench was not justified, on the ground that the learned Single Judge is not inclined to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench.