2003 (4) TMI 581 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts u/s 4(b), 4(c), and 37 of the Act.
3. Application of the doctrine of per incuriam.

Summary:

Constitutionality of Sections 15(1) and 15(2):
The Patna High Court declared Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, ultra vires of Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution. Section 15 provides that the Consolidation Officer shall grant a certificate to every raiyat and under-raiyat, which shall be conclusive proof of their title. The Supreme Court noted that an earlier Full Bench decision in Ramkrit Singh upheld the vires of Section 15, including the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matters covered by notification u/s 3 read with Section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Act.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:
The Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that certain disputes could be entertained by civil courts despite the restrictions u/s 4(b) and 4(c) and the bar of jurisdiction u/s 37. Section 4(b) states that no suit or legal proceeding shall be entertained by any court in the notified area, and Section 4(c) provides that every proceeding for correction of records or declaration of rights pending before any court shall stand abated. Section 37 attaches finality to decisions under the Act and bars civil court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned judgment diluted these provisions by holding that pending suits shall not abate unless a specific order of abatement is passed by the civil court and that suits would revive upon cancellation or completion of the Consolidation Scheme.

Doctrine of Per Incuriam:
The Supreme Court addressed the application of the doctrine of per incuriam by the Patna High Court, which held that the decision in Ramkrit Singh was not binding as it was rendered per incuriam. The Supreme Court clarified that a decision is per incuriam if it is given in ignorance of a statute or binding authority. The Court found that the Full Bench misapplied this doctrine, as the earlier decision in Ramkrit Singh did not ignore any statutory provision or binding authority. The Supreme Court emphasized that an earlier decision, even if perceived as incorrect, has a binding effect on a latter bench of coordinate jurisdiction unless referred to a larger bench.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment, emphasizing the correct application of the doctrine of per incuriam and the binding nature of earlier decisions.