https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277652 Where two co-equal Supreme Court decisions conflict, a High Court should follow the ruling that more accurately and elaborately states the law, rather than treating the later decision as automatically binding. In land acquisition references under Section 18, the jurisdiction is special and limited: although "person interested" is construed broadly, the reference remains confined to persons before the Collector and to issues arising from that reference. A stranger to the acquisition proceedings cannot be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 to convert the matter into a wider title dispute. The revision petition therefore failed and the impleadment applications were rejected. en-us Mon, 22 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Dec 2018 11:57:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277652 Where two co-equal Supreme Court decisions conflict, a High Court should follow the ruling that more accurately and elaborately states the law, rather than treating the later decision as automatically binding. In land acquisition references under Section 18, the jurisdiction is special and limited: although "person interested" is construed broadly, the reference remains confined to persons before the Collector and to issues arising from that reference. A stranger to the acquisition proceedings cannot be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 to convert the matter into a wider title dispute. The revision petition therefore failed and the impleadment applications were rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277652