Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.76 seconds)Meghalaya transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971
Section 4 in Meghalaya transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar vs Kalika Kuer @Kalika Singh & Ors on 25 April, 2003
26. As discussed above, the learned first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 decreed the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant in Title Suit No. 9(T) of 1982, which has been affirmed by the Judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 passed in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991 by a single bench of this court, ignoring the provisions of the Act of 1971 as amended by the 1977 Amendment as well as notification dated 7.6.1978 imposing total ban on transfer of land in favour of non-tribal, issued there under, thereby permitting some thing, which cannot be allowed under the law. Such a situation when brought to the notice of the Court has to be corrected even if no appeal was preferred by the present respondent against the Judgment and decreed passed in the said suit, as the Court's function is not to perpetuate the illegality but to rectify it, whenever it is brought to its notice. The Judgment and decree passed in ignorance of the provisions of law imposing total ban on transfer of land to a non-tribal was rendered per in curium and therefore cannot have any binding effect. However, it is true that the learned single Judge in FA No. 8(SH) of 1995 from which the present LPA arises, would have placed the matter before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench, having not agreeing to the Judgment passed by another single bench in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991, as judicial discipline requires the same. Normally the decision rendered by a bench of co-equal strength is to be followed by another bench of co-equal strength. If a subsequent bench of co-equal strength expressed its opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier bench of co-equal strength, the judicial propriety requires placing the matter before a bench consisting of a forum larger than one, which pronounces the decision laying down the law, the correctness of which is doubtful. (See State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh and State of A.P. v. V.C. Subbarayudu reported in (supra). However, as the matter is presently before the Division Bench of this Court, we have considered the Judgment and decree dated 6.11.1990 passed by the first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 and order dated 26.5.1995 passed by a single bench of this court in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991 and hold the said decision per in curium, as discussed above. Hence we are of the view that the Judgment and decree dated 6.11.1990, passed by the first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 as well as the Judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 9(SH) of 1991 are not binding, the same having been passed in ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1971 as amended and the notification issued there under and without noticing the provisions of the said Act.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Subbarayudu, V.C. & Ors on 22 January, 1998
26. As discussed above, the learned first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 decreed the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant in Title Suit No. 9(T) of 1982, which has been affirmed by the Judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 passed in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991 by a single bench of this court, ignoring the provisions of the Act of 1971 as amended by the 1977 Amendment as well as notification dated 7.6.1978 imposing total ban on transfer of land in favour of non-tribal, issued there under, thereby permitting some thing, which cannot be allowed under the law. Such a situation when brought to the notice of the Court has to be corrected even if no appeal was preferred by the present respondent against the Judgment and decreed passed in the said suit, as the Court's function is not to perpetuate the illegality but to rectify it, whenever it is brought to its notice. The Judgment and decree passed in ignorance of the provisions of law imposing total ban on transfer of land to a non-tribal was rendered per in curium and therefore cannot have any binding effect. However, it is true that the learned single Judge in FA No. 8(SH) of 1995 from which the present LPA arises, would have placed the matter before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench, having not agreeing to the Judgment passed by another single bench in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991, as judicial discipline requires the same. Normally the decision rendered by a bench of co-equal strength is to be followed by another bench of co-equal strength. If a subsequent bench of co-equal strength expressed its opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier bench of co-equal strength, the judicial propriety requires placing the matter before a bench consisting of a forum larger than one, which pronounces the decision laying down the law, the correctness of which is doubtful. (See State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh and State of A.P. v. V.C. Subbarayudu reported in (supra). However, as the matter is presently before the Division Bench of this Court, we have considered the Judgment and decree dated 6.11.1990 passed by the first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 and order dated 26.5.1995 passed by a single bench of this court in Civil Revision No. 9(SH) of 1991 and hold the said decision per in curium, as discussed above. Hence we are of the view that the Judgment and decree dated 6.11.1990, passed by the first appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 as well as the Judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 9(SH) of 1991 are not binding, the same having been passed in ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1971 as amended and the notification issued there under and without noticing the provisions of the said Act.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
27. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) is not applicable in the case at hand as in the said case, the Supreme Court has observed that the order passed on consent of the parties have no judicious value and should not be followed as precedent, which is not the case in hand.
Gulam Abbas & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 November, 1981
As already noticed above, the object of the principle of res judicata is to give finality to litigation and founded on consideration of public policy to achieve two objectives that-there must be finality to litigation and that individual should not be harassed twice in a similar kind of litigation as observed by the Apex Court in Golam Abbas (supra).
Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr on 1 September, 2004
22. A decision is rendered per in curium and consequently it will not have the binding precedent, when such decision is rendered in ignorance of law. The word "incuria" literally means "carelessness". 'Per in curia' is taken to mean 'per ignoratium'. The Judgment, which is rendered as per in curium is to be avoided and ignored. In the present case, the learned appellate Court in Title Civil Appeal No. 4(T) of 1989 as well as a single bench of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 9(SH) of 1991 have passed the decree and affirmed the same, as discussed above, in ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1971 as amended and also the notification dated 7.6.1978. The Apex Court in Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. and Anr. has observed that: "to perpetuate an error is no heroism.
Section 11 in Meghalaya transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
1