Case: State Of H.P Vs. Ashwani Kumar

2. The facts in nutshell are that Dev Raj, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, was holding land measuring 2400 kanals 9 marlas in village Kalroohi and Mubarikpur as owner. He was issued notice in form C-V in which area measuring 1767 Kanals 9 Marlas was proposed to be declared as surplus under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Instead of filing objection, the landowner filed a writ petition in which High Court directed that the determination of surplus area be made by the Collector. On 22.7.1976, the Collector, Una District passed an order holding that the land owned by wife of late Dev Raj namely, Smt. Kala Devi, and Yash Pal, Dharam Pal, Ram Pal sons of Dev Raj be excluded from the holding of landowner Dev Raj and all the members of the family holding land continue to enjoy rights therein to the extent of the determined permissible area. Thereafter, while deciding reference in revision, the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh remanded the case to the Collector for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the respondents. After remand, the Collector Land Ceiling, Una passed order holding that Dev Raj and that of his family with Ram Paul being adult son on the appointed day i.e.24.1.1971, the landowner is entitled for two units of land as permissible area.3. In appeal against the aforesaid order, the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, on 30.3.1986, held that the provisions of Section 4(6) are very explicit under which the total land held by the family members has to be considered. In revision, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Divisional Commissioner. Thereafter, successor-in-interest of Dev Raj filed writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the orders passed by the Revenue

Reasoning:
22. We make it clear that to maintain certainty in the judicial decision, we have to restrain from interfering with the decision of the High Court which has stood for a long period on the principle of stare decisis. However, the said principle will be applicable where the meaning of the Statute is ambiguous and capable of more interpretation than one. In the instant case, the provision of the Act/Statute is very clear and, therefore, principle of stare decisis is of no help to the respondents.23. Apart from that it appears that the instant case arose out of certain proceedings initiated as far back as in 1974, and travelled up to this Court. The Full Bench judgment came only in the year 1976 and, therefore, in our considered opinion, the doctrine of stare decisis should not apply in the facts of the present case.24. Considering the entire facts of the case and the relevant provisions of the Act, we are of the definite opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is contrary to law, facts on record, and the findings recorded therein cannot be sustained.