1983 (3) TMI 313 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of restrictions on the powers of Second Appellate Courts under Section 36 of the M.B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act.
2. Whether the Hindi version of the Act can be referred to for interpretation.
3. Validity of the doctrine of 'stare decisis' in this context.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Restrictions on the Powers of Second Appellate Courts under Section 36 of the M.B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act:
The primary issue was whether the restrictions placed on the powers of Second Appellate Courts under Section 36 of the M.B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act apply only to second appeals filed before the Board of Revenue or also to those filed before the Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners argued that the restrictions were applicable only to the Board of Revenue. The Court examined the Hindi and English versions of Section 36, noting that the Hindi version clearly indicated that the restrictions applied to all second appeals, irrespective of the forum. The Court concluded that the restrictions placed on the powers of the second appellate Court under Section 36 apply not only to second appeals preferred before the Board of Revenue but also to second appeals preferred before the Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner.

2. Whether the Hindi Version of the Act Can Be Referred to for Interpretation:
The petitioners contended that it was not permissible to refer to the Hindi version of the Act, arguing that the English translation published in the Gazette was the authoritative text. The Court referred to the M.B. Official Language Act, which mandated that all Acts passed by the Legislature of Madhya Bharat should be in Hindi, with an authoritative English text published in accordance with Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India. The Court cited precedents from the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, which held that when Hindi has been adopted as the legislative language, both Hindi and English versions are authoritative, and it is permissible to rely on the Hindi version in case of doubt. Therefore, the Court upheld the contention that the Hindi version of the Act could be referred to for interpretation.

3. Validity of the Doctrine of 'Stare Decisis' in This Context:
The petitioners urged that the decision in Prabhudayal v. State (1964 Rn 262) should not be disturbed based on the doctrine of 'stare decisis'. The Court noted that the doctrine of 'stare decisis' does not preclude reconsideration of an interpretation that started as an unexamined assumption. The Court observed that the decision in 1964 Rn 262 was given in ignorance of the Hindi version of the Statute and was based on an unexamined assumption. The doctrine of 'stare decisis' is invoked to prevent serious embarrassment for those who have relied on a particular interpretation of a statute, but in this case, the interpretation of Section 36 concerns the powers of a second appellate Court and would not cause serious embarrassment. Consequently, the doctrine of 'stare decisis' was not applicable in this context.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that the restrictions placed on the powers of the second appellate Court under Section 36 of the M.B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act apply to all second appeals, irrespective of whether they are filed before the Board of Revenue, the Commissioner, or the Settlement Commissioner. The case was remanded to the learned single Judge for disposal in accordance with this interpretation.