A Decision Can Be Per Incuriam If It’s Not Possible To Reconcile Its Ratio With That Of Previously Pronounced Judgment Of Co-Equal Or Larger Bench: SC
The Supreme Court reiterated that a decision or Judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced Judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the Writ Petition of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) was allowed.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “While considering the rule of per incuriam, the Constitution Bench of this Court has held that a decision or judgment can be said to be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench.”
The Bench noted that an earlier decision of a Bench of particular strength would be binding on the subsequent Benches of the Apex Court having the same or lesser number of Judges.
AOR Piyush Sharma appeared for the Appellants while Senior AAG Alok Sangwan and Advocate Rajat Sangwan appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background -
By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), the land of the Appellants was acquired for Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway. By an award, a compensation of Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre was determined. Aggrieved by the said award, similarly circumstanced land-owners preferred a Reference for enhancement of compensation before the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar under Section 18 of LA Act. The said Reference was dismissed and the said land-owners preferred a Regular First Appeal (RFA) before the High Court. The Court allowed the said RFA and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 19,91,300/- along with statutory benefits. Immediately thereafter, the Appellants filed an Application under Section 28-A of LA Act before the LAC, Jhajjar as Reference was not filed by the Appellants.
The LAC held that the Appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Judgment and Order of the High Court and enhanced the compensation payable to the Appellants to Rs. 19,91,300/- per acre along with statutory benefits as awarded by the High Court to the similarly circumstanced land-owners. Being aggrieved thereby, the Respondent preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Order of LAC. Resultantly, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, took note of the following conditions required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 28-A(1) of LA Act –
(i) An award has been made by the Court under Part III of the Act after coming into force of Section 28-A;
(ii) By the said Award, the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference;
(iii) The person moving the application under Section 28- A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the said award relates;
(iv) The person moving the application did not move the application under Section 18;
(v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of amount of compensation is sought; and
(vi) Only one such application can be moved under Section 28-A for redetermination of the compensation by the applicant.
The Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Section 28-A would reveal that the object underlying the enactment of the said provision is to remove inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality of land.
“It has been held that the said provision is for giving benefit to inarticulate and poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. It has been held that this is sought to be achieved by providing an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered by the same notification to seek redetermination once any of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that Section 28-A being a beneficent legislation enacted in order to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people, the principle of interpretation which would be required to be adopted is the one which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 951)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Piyush Sharma
Respondents: Senior AAG Alok Sangwan, AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, and Vaibhav Yadav.
