High Court: Lower courts can differ from superior court rulings

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that lower courts are not bound to follow superior court decisions if they were rendered due to inadvertent oversight.

Justice Anil Kshetarpal held that lower courts were empowered to invoke the “doctrine of per incuriam” when a judicial decision was delivered without considering relevant legal provisions.

“A judgment per incuriam is one which has been rendered inadvertently,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted, explaining that the Latin phrase means “through inadvertence”. The ruling came as the Bench disagreed with a Supreme Court judgment, clarifying that landowners seeking higher compensation for acquired land must rely on the Reference Court’s (RC) decision, not high court rulings in appeals.

Justice Kshetarpal elaborated on the Indian judicial system, emphasising that while the Supreme Court’s decisions are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, a judgment delivered in ignorance of relevant facts or legal precedent is not a binding precedent under the doctrine of per incuriam.

“The beauty of the Indian judicial system allows lower courts to invoke the doctrine of per incuriam if a decision has been rendered due to oversight,” the court observed, acknowledging that human errors can occur despite due diligence.

The case before the court involved the question of whether landowners could file applications under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for enhanced market value based on high court rulings in appeals, without first seeking enhancement from the Reference Court.

A 1983 notification was issued for acquiring land in Ambala, and the award was announced in 1988. The Reference Court reassessed compensation in 1993. The high court set the market rate at Rs 112 per square yard in 2009 while deciding appeals. Some landowners who had not initially approached the Reference Court filed applications under Section 28A, which were dismissed in 2010.

Justice Kshetarpal referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Babua Ram’s case, which held that applications under Section 28A could only be filed based on the Reference Court’s first award. However, this view was reversed by a larger Bench in Pardeep Kumari’s case.

The judge further clarified that the larger Bench in Pardeep Kumari’s case did not permit applications under Section 28A to be based on high court rulings in appeals. He pointed out that in another Supreme Court matter, the court was not apprised that the phrase “any award” in Pardeep Kumari’s case referred only to awards by the Reference Court and not to high court judgments.

Justice Kshetarpal noted, “An inadvertent error crept in, apparently due to lack of assistance.”