Suresh Marutrao Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 27 July, 2001
11. It was submitted before us on behalf of the respondents that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Mantlal Chandulal, the question is no longer res integra, and we are bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court. We must therefore, hold that the Collector, dealing with an application for reference under Section 18(1) of the Act, acts as a Statutory Authority, and not as a Court, notwithstanding the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, which was inserted by local amendment by Maharashtra Act XXXVIII
of 1964. On the other hand, it is contended by the Petitioner that the Supreme Court did not noticed the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhupal Premchand Shah, which had overruled the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Prabhakar Vasudev Cadgll. It is submitted that this Full Bench decision held the field, so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, when the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition), and since the judgment of the Full Bench was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court judgment should not be read so as to overrule the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Bhupal Premchand Shah. It was also submitted that the Maharashtra amendment did not apply to the State of Gujarat, and, therefore, it was not necessary for Their Lordships of the Supreme Court to consider the amendment to Section 18 brought about by Maharashtra Act XXXVIII of 1964 by addition of Sub-section (3) to Section 18. It was also submitted that Sub-section (3) of Section 18 did not directly fall for consideration in the case before the Supreme Court, and, therefore, any observation made in regard thereto must be considered as obiter.