Subsequent SC Decisions Which Have Considered & Distinguished Earlier Judgments Binding On High Courts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that its subsequent decisions which have considered and distinguished the earlier decisions are binding on High Courts.

Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.

In this case, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the judgment and award passed by a Reference Court in some land acquisition claims and remanded the matter to it. While doing so, it mainly relied on two Supreme Court judgments viz. Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Countinho (Dead) By LRs', (1980) 3 SCC 223; UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs  (1995) 2 SCC 326 to reject the contention that the MRPL, being an allottee from the KIADB and the beneficiary of the land acquisition proceedings is the KIADB and not the MRPL and the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was deposited by the KIADB, MRPL cannot be said to be a 'person interested'. The High Court had ignored the reliance placed on the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 469, wherein it was held that an allottee company cannot be said to be a beneficiary or a "person interested" entitled for hearing before determination of compensation.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that in Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra), the decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) were considered and distinguished. It was held that the decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) shall not be appliable with respect to the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966.

"Thus, it was not open for the High Court to not follow the binding decision of this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra) by observing that in the subsequent decision in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra), the earlier decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) have not been considered. The High Court has not noted that as such while deciding the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra), this Court did consider the earlier decisions in the case of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra) and Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. (supra) and had clearly distinguished the same. Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Being a subsequent decision, in which the earlier decisions were considered and distinguished by this Court, the subsequent decision of this Court was binding upon the High Court"

The court further observed that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966 are both distinct and the provisions under both the Acts are distinguishable. 

"We see no reason to take a different view than the view taken by this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (supra) that the MRPL being a subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a "person interested" for the purpose of determination of compensation", the bench observed while allowing the appeal

Case details

Gregory Patrao vs Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602 | CA 4105-4107 OF 2022 | 11 July 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 141 - Precedent - A subsequent decision, in which the earlier decisions were considered and distinguished by this Court, the subsequent decision of this Court was binding upon the High Court -Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7.3)

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ; Section 29(4)  -  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ; Section 18(1)  - Person Interested - A subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a "person interested" for the purpose of determination of compensation - The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966 are both distinct and the provisions under both the Acts are distinguishable - Referred to Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan Vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 469. (Para 7.3-7.4)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment