KRISHNAN RAMAN Vs. SOMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions concern a question of construction and interpretation of Explanation IIA to S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) Two Full Bench decisions of this Court, Velayudhan v. Aishabi ( 1981 KLT 529 ) and Xavier v. Antony ( 1982 KLT 769 ). and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma and Another (1988 (I) KLT 512 : JT 1988 (1) SC. 184) which has approved the Full Bench decisions, have settled the question. So, there is no scope for me to consider or interpret or to enquire and investigate the scheme, scope and the width of Explanation HA to S.2 (25) of the Act.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that in another case I had occasion to doubt the correctness of the Full Bench decisions and that 1 bad referred that case for a reconsideration of the Full Beach decisions and so, I must express the ambit, scope and width of Explanation II A to S.2(25) of the Act. It is true that I have doubted the correctness of the Full Bench decisions. But, now, I am bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and so, I have to decide the case applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma & Anr. Though not ostensible the counsel reminded me that the consistent operation of a precedential decision procedure is so patently incompatible with all conceptions of progress, enlightenment and self correction, I should innovate a method of my own to distinguish Appukuttan's case and render justice to the case at hand. I may at once say that I am bound by the Supreme Court decision and I do not venture to speculate improvements on that decision in an attempt to distinguish it.