Disregarding Binding Precedent Constitutes Manifest Error in the Order: SC

Karnail Singh Vs State Of Haryana & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

SC that ignoring the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagat Ram and taking a view totally contrary to the same itself would amount to a material error, manifest on the face of the order. Ignoring the judgment of the Constitution Bench, in our view, would undermine its soundness.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The present review petition has been filed by the original respondent No.28 in the Appeal, seeking review of the judgment of this Court passed on 7t^h April 2022, thereby allowing the Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 filed by the State of Haryana against the judgement and order passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “Full Bench of the High Court”) in Civil Writ Petition No. 5877 of 1992 dated 13t^h March 2003

2. The bare necessary facts giving rise to the present review petition are thus:

2.1 The State of Haryana, by way of Government Gazette Notification dated 11t^h February 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992”) inserted sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the Haryana¹ Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act”) along with an explanation to the said sub-clause which received the assent of the President on 14t^h January 1992. The sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act reads thus:

“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires –

xxx xxx xxx

(g) “shamilat deh” includes-

xxx xxx xxx

(6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the Gram Panchayat under section 23-A of the aforesaid Act.

Explanation – Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as “Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad”, “Jumla Malkan” or “Mushtarka Malkan” shall be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section.”

2.2 Being aggrieved by the said amendment, the present review petitioner along with similarly situated landowners, holding land in villages, who contribute a share of their holdings to form a common pool of land called ‘shamilat deh’, meant exclusively for the common purposes of the village inhabitants filed a batch of Writ Petitions before the High Court. Considering the matter to be involving important questions of law, likely to arise in a large number of cases and involving a large chunk of land; the Hon’ble Division Bench, then seized of the matter vide Orders dated 01^st June, 1993 directed the papers of the case to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench of the High Court for determination of the vires of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 and the explanation thereof. The Full Bench of the High Court vide judgement dated 18^th January 1995 allowed the batch of Writ Petitions, wherein the judgement came to be recorded in CWP No. 5877 of 1992.