2014 (10) TMI 1051 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act would be applicable qua the Appellants in view of the fact that they belonged to a place which was in erstwhile State of Bihar and by virtue of the State Reorganisation Act, their lands were included in the State of West Bengal? - HELD THAT - The land in question was transferred from the State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal pursuant to the enactment of Bihar and West Bengal (Transferred Territories) Act, 1956 and the provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms Act were extended to the transferred territories. Consequently, the land in question was shown to have been vested in the State and the Appellant challenged the said order of vesting by filing a writ petition being CR No. 3466 of 1984. The said writ petition was allowed by the Calcutta High Court in terms of Order dated 25.11.1994 and the said order of vesting was quashed on the ground of non applicability of Chapter IIB of the aforesaid Act. It is well settled that even if the decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment merely because a subsequent judgment of the single judge has taken contrary view. That does not confer jurisdiction upon the tribunal to ignore the judgment and direction of the High Court given in the case of the Appellants. The High Court also fell in error in affirming the order of the tribunal, hence these orders cannot be sustained in law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to territories transferred from Bihar to West Bengal.
2. Validity of the vesting proceedings initiated under Section 14-T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in dismissing the application for correction of the Record of Rights.
4. Binding nature of judicial precedents and the principle of per incuriam.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to territories transferred from Bihar to West Bengal:
The primary issue was whether Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which deals with the ceiling on holding, was applicable to the territories transferred from Bihar to West Bengal. The High Court of Calcutta had previously held that in the absence of a specific notification, Chapter IIB was not applicable to these transferred territories. This was affirmed in the case of Pradip Kumar Maskara, where the High Court quashed the vesting proceedings due to the non-applicability of Chapter IIB. However, in a later judgment, Ganga Dhar Singh v. State of West Bengal, another Single Judge of the High Court held that no notification was required for the applicability of Chapter IIB to the transferred territories.

2. Validity of the vesting proceedings initiated under Section 14-T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act:
The vesting proceedings under Section 14-T were challenged by the appellants on the grounds that Chapter IIB was not applicable to the transferred territories. The High Court, in the case of Pradip Kumar Maskara, quashed the vesting proceedings initiated against the appellants. However, the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the appellants' application for correction of the Record of Rights, relying on the judgment in Ganga Dhar Singh's case, which held that Chapter IIB was applicable to the transferred territories without the need for a specific notification.

3. Jurisdiction of the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in dismissing the application for correction of the Record of Rights:
The Tribunal dismissed the application for correction of the Record of Rights, stating that the decision in Ganga Dhar Singh's case was a binding precedent. However, the Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to differ from the earlier decision of the High Court in the appellants' case, which had attained finality. The Tribunal's reliance on Ganga Dhar Singh's case, which was decided by a Single Judge, was erroneous, especially when the earlier judgment in the appellants' case was not quashed or set aside by a larger bench or the Supreme Court.

4. Binding nature of judicial precedents and the principle of per incuriam:
The Supreme Court noted that the judgment in Ganga Dhar Singh's case was rendered without referring to the earlier judgments of the High Court, making it per incuriam. The Tribunal's decision to follow Ganga Dhar Singh's case, treating it as a Division Bench judgment, was incorrect. The Supreme Court emphasized that even if a subsequent judgment takes a contrary view, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to ignore the earlier binding judgment. The principle of per incuriam was applied, highlighting that the earlier judgment in the appellants' case should have been followed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to follow the earlier decision of the Calcutta High Court in the appellants' case, which quashed the vesting proceedings due to the non-applicability of Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to the transferred territories. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of judicial precedents and the principle of per incuriam in ensuring consistency and correctness in legal decisions.