Doctrine Of Merger Not Universal In Application, Article 142 Powers An Exception: Supreme Court

Written by:

Adv Shubham Pahuja

Updated: 24-03-2024

Categories

General Legal issues

Common Marriage Problems

Property Issues

Bail

Marriage and Divorce

Cyber Fraud

startup

RERA

Current Affairs

corporate

statutory Compliances

Case Law

Share with your community:

The Supreme Court of India has declared that Article 142 of the Indian Constitution is an exception to the theory of merger and stare decisis.

The court adopted the test established in the landmark decision of the Constitution Bench of Five Judges in Indore Development Authority v/s Manoharlal and Others (2020 SC) to the landowners' arguments. The extraordinary constitutional powers granted to the court under Article 142 separation of power remain intact and are always regarded as an exception to the theory of merger and the norm of stare decisis.

Facts of the Case

The land acquisition was begun to purchase the lands of M/s BSK Realtors, and the Delhi High Court granted the writ petition based on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and Ors. (2014 SC).In Pune Municipal, it was held that if either of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, ("2013 Act") were met, i.e., either physical possession of the land was not taken or compensation was not paid, the acquisition proceedings under challenge would be deemed to have lapsed.

In Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others, on March 6, 2020, a Constitution Bench of five judges overruled the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), saying that land acquisition proceedings lapse only when the dual prerequisites of non-payment of compensation to landowners are met and the State's failure to take physical possession of the acquired lands. GNCTD submitted the matter, and after noticing that the problem required more investigation, a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges directed that a three-judge Bench hear it.

Decision of Court

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency, clarity, and coherence through harmonious resolutions, despite the chaos caused by inconsistent judicial opinions on section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This makes the current batch of lis a unique dispute. It is entirely fortuitous and incidental that one SLP arising from the same acquisition may have been converted into a civil appeal and dismissed by this Court, whereas another SLPs stemming from the same acquisition may have been dismissed without leave or are still pending. The essential consequence is that one parcel of land is purchased and vested in the State free of all encumbrances under the 1894 Act, while another parcel of contiguous land is released as a result of the acquisition having lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act." The Court further stated that the merger theory cannot be applied mechanically in circumstances where it results in irreversible consequences and the general public has developed an interest in public infrastructure. In cases of disparity between groups, the Court was able to do complete justice between expropriated landowners, the State, and its developing agencies, and, most importantly, the general public who had acquired a vested right in the public infrastructure projects, using the extraordinary powers granted by Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

What is the Doctrine of Merger

It is a common law notion based on the principle of maintaining decorum and propriety in the conduct of courts and tribunals. The doctrine of merger in the Supreme Court states that when an appeal court issues an order, the order issued by the lower court is merged with it. The basic rationale is that at any given time, only one decree or effective order can regulate the same subject area. The theory resolves the question of which order should be enforced and given priority if both subordinates issue multiple orders on the same topic and superior courts. It clarifies and stipulates that in this circumstance, the superior court's order or the subsequent ruling will take precedence, and the lower court's order will be combined with the superior court's order. The idea is not legally recognized, but it is a declaration of judicial propriety that aims to establish discipline in the operations of subordinate adjudicating bodies, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative.

What is the Stare Decisis Doctrine?

The notion of Stare Decisis states that courts must follow previously issued judicial decisions in circumstances where identical legal problems are raised in future proceedings. It indicates that courts use precedent to make decisions about similar legal issues. Courts refer to such past decisions as "precedents". Court rulings establish legal concepts or norms known as precedents. Such decisions serve as authority or an example for courts to use in future decisions on similar legal cases/issues. The concept of stare decisis requires courts to consult precedents while making a conclusion.

Sharks of Law educates individuals about legal issues and fosters critical thinking. We provide online consultation and legal advice. You can find a lawyer here.

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com

Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993