STATE OF BIHAR versus KALIKA KUER @ KALIKA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 25-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
ST ATE OF BIHAR 
A 
-
V. 
KALIKA KUER @ KALIKA SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 25, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 13 and 14/Bihar Consolidation of 
Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956; Sections 3, 4(b) and 
(c), 15(/) and (2) and Section 37: 
c 
? 
Provision of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of 
Fragmentation Act-Constitutionality of-Full Bench/three Judge Bench of 
High Court holding Section 15 of the Act ultra vires Articles 13 and 14 of the 
Constitution of India-It also diluted the effect of the provisions of Section 
4(b)(c) and Section 37 by enlarging jurisdiction of Civil Court under the Act, D 
ignoring an earlier decision of the Full Bench of the High Court on the same 
issue as having been rendered per incuriam-On appeal, Held: Earlier decision 
may seem to be incorrect to a subsequent Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction on 
ground of non-consideration of possible aspects of the matter-However, it 
would not be reasonable to ignore the same as rendered per incuriam-Hence 
not permissible-Such earlier decision would have binding effect-It would be E 
appropriate either to follow it or refer it to a larger Bench when decision 
appears to be incorrect on merit-Matter remanded to the High Court to 
dispose it of accordingly-Directions issued. 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
'per incuriam '-MeC'ning and scope of 
' 
~ 
\ 
A Full Bench consisting of three Judges of the High Court considered 
the questions relating to vires, interpretation and scope of provisions of 
the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act G 
and held Section 15 of the Act ultra vires Articles 13 and 14 of the 
Constitution of India and the Bench has also diluted the effect of the 
provision under Sections 4(b), 4(c) and 37 of the Act holding the earlier 
decision by a Full Bench of the same High Court in the case of Ramkrit 
Singh and Ors. v. State ofBihar and Ors., AIR (1979) Patna 250 not binding 
919 
H 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A as having beeri rendered per incuriam. Hence, this appeal by the State. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the High Court, 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The reason which has been indicated to hold that the 
B decision in the case of Ramkrit Singh was per incuriam is that it did not 
consider the question as to whether the consolidation authorities are courts 
of limited jurisdiction or not. Hence, an observation was made that civil 
court while disposing of suits after revival of their jurisdiction at the end 
of consolidation proceedings would merely pass a decree in terms of 
C decision of the consolidation authority. It is. observed that cases where 
jurisdiction of civil court is not barred in terms of Section 4(b) or Section 
37 of the Act, "the civil court cannot pass a decree only in terms of decision 
of the consolidation authorities" after revival of the suit. Whatever has been 
held or observed in the case of Ramkrit Singh may not appear to be correct 
or may seem to be against the provision of the Act but that would not be 
D a valid ground to hold that the earlier judgment was rendered per incuriam 
or that the decision would not be binding on the Bench of a coordinate 
jurisdiction. (923-E-Gl 
Ramkrit Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1979) Patna 
E 250, referred to. 
1.2. The element of rendering a decision in ignorance of any provision 
of the statute or the judicial authority of binding nature, is not the reason 
indicated by the Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment, 
while holding that decision in the case of Ramkrit Singh was rendered per 
F incuriam. On the other hand, it.was observed that in the case of Ramkrit 
Singh the High Court did not consider the question as to whether the 
consolidation authorities are courts of limited jurisdiction or not. In 
connection with. this observation, an earlier decision may seem to be 
incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question 
G later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was, not considered 
or not raised before the Court or more aspects should have been gone into 
by the Court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to 
say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. 
The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct, yet it will have the 
binding effect on the latter Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. Easy course

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.