A recent Supreme Court ruling has provided clarity on how High Courts should approach situations where two Supreme Court decisions appear inconsistent. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, emphasized that High Courts must attempt to reconcile both judgments rather than selectively following one.

"If two decisions of this Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and respect them both….and follow that decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand," observed the bench.

The judgment referenced the historic principle laid down in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495 at p.506, as reiterated in Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore AIR 1940 PC 230:

“Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions, which may be found there, are not intended to be expositions of the whole law but governed or qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.”

Read Also:- Supreme Court: Disputed Questions of Fact Do Not Bar High Court from Granting Relief Under Article 226

However, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that in cases of conflicting precedents, the High Court should adhere to the earlier decision. This principle was upheld in UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference:

"When faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805."

In a related case, M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors., the Supreme Court reiterated that the mere existence of disputed questions of fact does not strip the writ court of its jurisdiction.

The court referred to the Privy Council ruling in Alexander Rodger Charles Carnie v. Comproir D’Escompte De Paris, 1871 Law Reports 3 Privy Council 475, stating:

"One of the first and highest duties of all courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the Suitors…"

This ruling underscored that High Courts, while exercising their writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, must not dismiss cases solely on the basis that disputed questions of fact exist.

Case Study: Land Acquisition and Judicial Review

In M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar & Ors., the Supreme Court examined a land acquisition case where procedural lapses led to a dispute over possession. The appellant company, engaged in manufacturing electrical equipment, had purchased land in Hyderabad, which later became the subject of urban land ceiling regulations.

Read Also:- Freedom of Satire Upheld: Karnataka High Court Dismisses FIR Against Students Over Alleged Offensive Skit

Key legal contentions:

• The authorities issued notices under Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
• The appellant claimed that the government did not follow due process, as mandatory 30-day notice requirements were violated.
• The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, citing procedural irregularities.
• The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that physical possession was taken via a panchnama.
• The Supreme Court revisited the case, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures and reaffirming the necessity of actual physical possession in land acquisition matters.

Supreme Court’s Final Observations

The Supreme Court laid down clear guidelines:

1. Reconciling Conflicting Judgments: High Courts must analyze and reconcile conflicting Supreme Court rulings rather than arbitrarily choosing one.
2. Significance of Procedural Compliance: Notices under statutory provisions must strictly adhere to prescribed timelines.
3. Role of Writ Courts: Mere existence of disputed facts does not bar writ jurisdiction, provided fundamental rights or legal violations are evident.
4. Actual vs. Symbolic Possession: Possession must be actual and documented with cogent evidence rather than symbolic procedures.

This judgment serves as a crucial precedent in ensuring judicial consistency, procedural integrity, and protection of litigants' rights in conflicting legal scenarios.

Case Name: M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS 4526-4527 OF 2024