CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court
Supreme Court: A View Consistently Upheld By Courts Over Long Period Must Be Followed Unless It Is Manifestly Erroneous,Unjust Or Mischievous
|The Supreme Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which partly allowed the Writ Petition of proprietors/landowners.
The Supreme Court observed that a view consistently upheld by Courts over a long period must be followed, unless it is manifestly erroneous, unjust or mischievous.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which partly allowed the Writ Petition of proprietors/landowners.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan emphasised, “The doctrine of stare decisis lays importance on stability and predictability in the legal system and mandates that a view consistently upheld by courts over a long period must be followed, unless it is manifestly erroneous, unjust or mischievous.”
The Bench said that the Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned Judgment and final Order in the alternative held that, a consistent view has been taken in more than 100 Judgments by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and applying the doctrine of stare decisis, such a view cannot be upset.
Senior Advocate Vinay Navare appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Senior Advocates Manoj Swarup, Narender Hooda, and Rameshwar Singh Malik appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant-State by way of Government Gazette Notification inserted sub-clause (6) to Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 along with an Explanation to the said sub-clause, which received the assent of the President in the year 1992. The Respondents-landowners along with several other similarly-situated landowners who held land in various villages and had contributed a share of their holdings to form a common pool of land called ‘shamilat deh’, which was meant exclusively for the common purposes of the village inhabitants, filed Writ Petitions before the High Court being aggrieved by the aforementioned amendment.
The Division Bench upon considering the important questions of law, directed the papers of the case to be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench of the High Court for determination of the vires of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992. Thereafter, the Full Bench allowed the Writ Petitions and struck down the amendments carried out by way of the Haryana Act. The State challenged this before the Supreme Court which held that certain essentials of Article 31-A of the Constitution had been overlooked and hence, the case was remanded to the High Court. The Full Bench of the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petitions of the landowners and issued certain consequential directions with regard to certain mutation entries made by the Revenue Authorities. Being aggrieved, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “… no error could be noticed in the impugned judgment and final order of the Full Bench of the High Court to the extent that it holds that the lands which have not been earmarked for any specific purpose do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State.”
The Court remarked that all the decisions had held that the land which remains unutilized after utilizing the land for the common purposes so provided under the consolidation scheme vests with the proprietors and not with the Gram Panchayat.
“We find no error in the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in applying the doctrine of stare decisis to the facts of the present case inasmuch as it followed the law which was consistently applied in more than 100 judgments”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title- The State of Haryana v. Jai Singh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1122)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, AAG B.K. Satija, AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Gautam Sharma, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Gaj Singh, Shruti Tripathi, and Amit Ojha.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Manoj Swarup, Narender Hooda, Rameshwar Singh Malik, AORs Ravindra Bana, Rajesh Kumar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Ashok Kumar Singh, Vipin Gupta, Satish Kumar, Surender Singh Hooda, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, A. Venayagam Balan, Ankit Swarup, Advocates Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Harshvardhan Lodhi, Shashi Verma, Jitesh Malik, Anisha Dahiya, Tarjit Singh Chhikara, Abhaya Nath Das, Om Prakash Sapra, Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Pallvi Hooda, Shiv Bhatnagar, Yuvraj Nandal, Kavya Manuja, Tannu, Manoranjan Paikaray, Pranab Kumar Samantray, Pradeep Kar, Anubha Agarwal, Neelmani Pant, and Ruchil Raj.