Lower courts can differ from superior court rulings rendered inadvertently: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that lower courts can take a different view if a superior court’s decision is made due to unintentional oversight. Justice Anil Kshetarpal held that lower courts were empowered to invoke the “doctrine of per incuriam” when the judicial decision was rendered due to inadvertent ignorance.

Justice Kshetarpal asserted the Latin expression ‘per incuriam’ meant through inadvertence. “A judgment per incuriam is one which has been rendered inadvertently,” the bench asserted. The assertions came as the bench differed from a Supreme Court judgment to clarify that landowners could request higher compensation based only on decisions by the reference court (RC) handling land acquisition cases and not on rulings given by the high court in appeals.

“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, while asserting that human errors did occur despite due diligence.

Elaborating, Justice Kshetarpal asserted the declaration of law by the Supreme Court was binding on all the courts as per Article 141 of the Constitution. A high court could not question the correctness of its decision. But a judgment in inadvertent ignorance was not a binding precedent in view of doctrine of per incuriam.

The question before the court was whether application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act could be filed by the landowners seeking enhanced market value of acquired land on the basis of high court judgment in appeals without first filing applications before the RC.

A notification in the case was issued in 1983 for acquiring land in Ambala, while the award was announced in 1988. The RC reassessed compensation in 1993. The high court subsequently fixed the market rate at Rs 112 per square yard while deciding appeals in 2009. Some landowners, who had not sought enhancement earlier by moving RC, filed applications under Section 28A. These were dismissed by the RC in 2010.

Justice Kshetarpal asserted the Supreme Court “Babua Ram’s case” interpreted that applications under Section 28A could be filed only on the basis of first award passed by the RC. The view was reversed by a three-judge bench “Pardeep Kumari’s case”.

Justice Kshetarpal asserted the larger bench in Pardeep Kumari’s case did not declare that application under Section 28A could be filed on the basis of market value assessment by the high court in appeals. The bench added the Supreme Court in another matter was not apprised of the fact that the expression ‘any award’ used in Pardeep Kumari’s case was award passed by the RC and not related to high court judgment in an appeal. Inadvertent error crept in apparently that due to lack of assistance.