STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusASHWANI KUMAR AND OTHERS

                       [2015] 12 S.C.R. 142 .


A       STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS
                                 v.
                ASHWANI KUMAR AND OTHERS
                  (Civil Appeal No.6015 of2009)
B
                      NOVEMBER 26, 2015
             [M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
        Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings A ct, 1972:
c s.4 - Permissible area - Calculation of - Held: Where a
  person is a member of the family, the land held by such
  person together with the land held by all the members of the
  family shall be taken into account for calculating the
  permissible area -An adult son is to be treated as a separate
D unit and he is entitled to have separate unit of permissible
  area up to the extent of the permissible area of a family
  subject to the condition that the aggregate land of the family
  and that of a separate unit put together shall not exceed twice
  the area permissible.
E
         Allowing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: By reading the plain language of Section 4,
   it provides that the landowner may be a family, capable
   of holding property, consisting of husband, wife and
 F three minor children. As per sub-section (1) of Section
   4, the permissible area which a family consisting of
   husband, wife and up to three minor children shall be to
   the extent provided therein. It is, therefore, manifest that
   under Section 4(1) of the Act, the family is limited in terms
.G of number of minor children, though in the definition
   clause, i.e. under Section 3(e), "family" is not limited in
   terms of minor children. The family, therefore, will be
   taken as an individual unit for the purpose of determining
 H the permissible area under the Act. Sub-section (4) of
   Section 4, however, makes it clear that every adult son
                               142
  STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHWANI KUMAR                   143


shall be treated as a separate unit and he shall be entitled A
to the land up to the extent permissible to a family under
sub-sections (1) and (2) subjectto the condition thatthe
aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units
 put together shall not exceed twice the area permissible
 under the said sub-section. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 B
further makes it clear that where a person is a member
of the family, the land held by such person together with
the land held by all the members of the family shall be
taken into account for the purpose of calculating the
permissible area. In other words, by reading the entire C
provisions of Section 4, particularly sub-section (6) of
Section 4, it is made clear that even if the respondents
were holding property iri their respective individual
capacity as a person, land held by them will be taken
                                                              0
into account for the purpose of calculating the
permissible area. The provision in its clear term provides
one kind of an exception in case of an adult son of a
person. In that case such adult son will be 'treated as a
separate unit and he is entitled to have separate unit of E
permissible area up to the extent of the permissible area
of a family subject to the condition that the aggregate •
land of the family and that of a separate unit put together
shall not exceed twice the area permissible. If we read
sub-section (4) minutely, it comes out that in the first part F
the legislature used the word "s~parate unit" but in the
later part the legislatures have used the word "separate
units" as plural. The opening words of sub-section (4)
of Section 4, starts with "every adult son of a person"
meaning thereby even if a person has. more than one G
adult son, all will be tre,ated as separate unit individually
but subject to the condition that aggregate land of the ·
family and that of the separate units put together shall
not exceed twice the area permissible under the said
sub-section. [Paras 13, 14) [151-H; 152-A-H; 153-A-B]         H ·.
144        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A           Gajnan and Others vs. Seth Brindaban 1971 (1)
            SCR 657: (1970) 2 SCC 360; Raj Narain Pandey
            and Others vs. Sant Prasad Tewari and Others
          . 1973 (2) SCR 835 : (1973) 2 sec 35;1ndra
            Sawhney and others vs. Union of India and others,
 B          etc. AIR (1993)SC477 :1992 (2) Suppl. SCR454
           - referred to.
           Rajkumar Rajindra Singh vs. Union of India ILR
           1976 HP 453 - disapproved.
 c                       Case Law Reference

      1971 (1) SCR 657              referred to.      Para 14
      1973 (2) SCR 835              referred to.      Para 14

 D ILR 1976 HP 453                  disapproved.      Para 18
      1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454       referred to.       Para 21

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      6015of2009
 E
             From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2007 of the
      loligh Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 180
      of 1992

           Suryanarayana Singh (for Pragati Neekhra) for the
 F    Appellants.

           Anip Se>chthey, Mohit Paul, Shagun Matta, Anil Nag for
      the Respondents.

 G         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    .    M. Y. EQBAL, J.: 1. This appeal by special leave is
   directed against judgment dated 7.5.2007 passed by the
   Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
 H whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents was
  STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHWANI KUMAR                        145
                 [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

allowed and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities A
were quashed, holding that every landowner of the family of
one Dev Raj was entitled for a separate unit

       2. The facts in nutshell are that Dev Raj, predecessor-in-
 interest of the respondents herein, was holding land measuring     B
 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     C
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          D
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             E
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     F
appointed day i.e.24.1.1971, the landowner is entitled for two
units of land as permis~ible 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 G
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 H
146        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.



A     of Himachal Pradesh challenging the orders passed by the
      Revenue Authorities.

           4. Before the High Court, respondents pleaded that the
   writ petitioners in their own right are individual landowners
B before the appointed day under the Act. Their individual land
    holdings cannot be clubbed together for determining
    permissible area under Section 4 of the Act and such
    petitioners are entitled to one unit individually under the Act.
    The individual holding of all petitioners except writ petitioner
C no.1 is far below permissible area. Therefore, while
    determiningtheir permissible area, the surplus area out of the
    land holding of writ petitioner no.1 only is to be excluded, the
    others do not have any surplus area as their individual holding
    is within the permissible limits of the Act. It was argued before
D the High Court that the order dated 22.7.1976 passed by the
    District Collector but other orders passed subsequent to that
  . order are not in accordance with the Act. It has been urged
    that in sub-section (4) of Section 4 ad ult son of a landowner is
    entitled to a separate unit up to the extent permissible to a
E 'family' under sub-section (1) and (2) but once adult son himself
    is a landowner in his own right, then he is entitled to hold
    permissible area under the Act in his individual capacity and
    he cannot be confined to have separate unit up to the extent
F permissible to a family.
        5. Per contra, State of Himachal Pradesh heavily relied
  upon sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the ACt and contended
  that writ petitioners nos.2 to 5 are members of the family of
  writ petitioner no.1, and therefore, their holding individually
G together with the land held by all of them shall be taken into
  account for the purposes of calculating the permissible area.

           6.The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ
   . petition and quashed the orders passed by the Revenue
 H Authorities directing the Collector Land Ceiling, Una to
. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHWANI KUMAR                         147
                 [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

determine the permissible area of original writ petitioners nos.1    A
to 5 individually in the light of the observations made in the
impugned judgment. The High Court observed thus:
      "23. lnAnnexure P-11 it has come that petitioner No.1
      Dev Raj has four sons who are all major and reside
                                                                     8
      separately from their father. As against this evidence,
      the respondents have not proved that the petitioners No.2
      to 5 have acquired any land through petitioner No.1
      before the appointed date 24.1.1971. The simple case
      of the respondents is that since petitioners No.2 to 5 are     C
     family members of petitioner No.1, therefore, their
      individual holding is to be counted for determination of
      permissible area of all family members as a unit and,
     therefore, all of them collectively are entitled to only two
      units. This argument of the respondents has no force;          D
     firstly, petitioner No.2 is the wife and petitioners No.2. to
     5 are adult sons of petitioner No.1. Family has been
     defined as husband, wife and their minor children or
     anyone or more of them. The petitioner No.2 being the
     wife of petitioner No.1 is entitled to be treated as an         E
     individual person for the purposes of determining the
     permissible area available to her as held in Raj Kumar
     Rajinder Singh's case (supra). The petitioners nos.3 to
     5 are not family members of petitioner no.1 as per
     definition of family and otherwise also their individual land   F
     holding cannot be counted under sub-section (6) of
     Section 4 for determination of permissible area along
     with petitioner no.1. Even if petitioners nos.3 to 5 on the
     appointed date were minors still their individual holdings
     cannot be counted for determining the permissible area          G
     of petitioner no.1 Dev Raj. The permissible area of all
     petitioners is to be determined under Section 4
     separately under the Act. The authorities have erred in
     reviewing the order dated 22. 7 .1976 Annexure P~ 11 by         H
     applying Mehar Ali's case decided by respondent no.2."
148         SUPREME COURT REPORTS·                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A       7. Cha!lenging the decision of the High Court, the State
  of Himachal Pradesh and its revenue authorities have
  preferred instant appeal by special leave raising question of
  law whether in view of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh
  Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, a family of husband, wife,
B one adult son and three minor children, though everybody was
  holding the land on 241h day of January, 1971, could hold more
  than two units of permissible area?

             8. Mr. Suryanaryana Singh, learned Sr. MG appearing
C     for the State of H.P., assailed the impugned judgment passed
      by the High Court mainly on the ground that the provisions of
      the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972
      (for short, "the Act") has been interpreted in such a way that it
      has swayed away the very object of the ceiling law. According
D     to the learned counsel, the original writ petitioner Dev Raj and
      his wife were having 4 sons; one major and 3 minors on the
      appointed day when the Ceiling Act came into force i.e.
      24.01.1971. According to the learned counsel, the High Court
      has not correctly interpreted Section 4 of the Act and the
 ~    definition of terms, "landowner", "permissible area", "person",
      "separate unit" and "surplus area". Learned counsel further
      submitted that the High Court has erred in law in holding that
      the earlier judgment in Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh's case, the
 F    Court has recorded a finding in paragraph 19 of the judgment
      when as a matter of fact that was the submission made by the
      counsels in that case. Mr. Suryanaryana further submitted that
      it is an admitted case of both the parties that on 24 1h January
       1971 the landowner Dev Raj was having a family comprising
G     of his wife, one adult son and 3 minor sons. By correctly
      interpreting the provisions of the Act, it cannot be held that all
      the members of the family shall hold land separately and their
       holdings cannot be counted for determining the permissible
      area.
 H
  STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHWANI KUMAR                    149
                 [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

      9. Per contra, Mr. Anil Sachthey, learned counsel for the A
respondent, fully relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumar Rajinder's case
(AIR 1976 HP 82(FB). Learned counsel submitted that the
Full Bench considered the provisions of the Act and held that
additional area is added on the fiction that so much more land B
out of the land holding is required as a provision in the hands
of the land holder in respect of an adult son.

       10. Mr. Sachthey, then submitted that in any event it is a
settled proposition of law that where a decision is allowed to C
stand or followed for a considerable length of time then the
Court is reluctant to interfere on the principle of stare decisis.
In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decisions
of this Court in the case of Gajnan and Others vs. Seth
Brindaban; (1970) 2 SCC 360 and Raj Narain Pandey and D
Others vs. Sant Prasad Tewari and Others; (1973) 2 SCC
35.

      11. At this stage, we think it proper to go through the
relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 defines the word      E
"family" and "person" as under:- .
     "3(e) "family" means husband, wife and their minor
     children or any one or more of them;
                            )()()()(                            F
     3(n) "person" means the landowner, tenant and
     mortgagee with possession, and includes a company,
     a family, an association or other body of individuals,
     whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable G
     of holding property;"
      12. Perusal of the aforesaid definitions makes it clear
that the words "family" and "person" mean the landowner etc.
in the Act. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:-
                                                                H
150   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A     "Section 4: Permissible area
      ( 1) The permissible area of a landowner or a tenant or a
      mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity or
      partly in another of person or a family consisting of
      husband, wife and up to three minor children shall be in
B
      respect of-
        (a) land· under assured irrigation capable of growing
        two crops in a year-10 acres.
        (b) land under assured irrigation capable of growing
c       one crop in a year- 15 acres.
        (c) land of classes other than described in clauses (a)
        and (b) above including land under orchards-30 acres. .
      (2) The permissible area for the purposes of clause (c)
D     of sub-section (1) for the districts of Kinnaur and La haul
      and Spiti, Tehsil Pangi and Sub-Tehsil Bharmaur of
      Chamba district, area of Chhota Bhangal and Bara
      Bhangal of Baijnath Kanungo Circle of Tehsil Palampur
      of Kangra district, and area of Dodra Kowar Patwar
 E
      Circle of Rohru Tehsil and Pandrabis Pargana of Rampur
      Tehsil of Shimla district shall be 70 acres.
      (3) The permissible area of a family under sub-section
      (1) shall be increased by one-fifth of the permissible area
 F    under sub-sections (1) and (2) for each additional minor
                             '
      member of a family subject to the condition that the
      aggregate permissible area shall not exceed twice the
      permissible area offamily undersub-sections{1) and (2).
      (4) Eveiy adult son of a person shall be treated as a.
 G    separate unit and he shall be entitled to the land upto the
      extent permissible to a family under sub-sections (1) and
      (2) subject to the condition that the aggregate land of the
      family and that of the separate units put together shall
      not exceed twice the area permissible under the said
 H    sub-sections:
                        •


 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHWANI KUMAR                     151
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

        Provided that where the separate unit owns any land, A
        the same shall be taken into account for calculating
        the permissible area for that unit.
     (5) If a person holds land of two or more categories
     described in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) B
     and sub-section (2) of this section then the permissible
     area shall be determined on the following basis:-
        (i) in the areas mentioned in sub-section (2) of this
        section, one acre of land mentioned in clause (a) of
        sub-section (1) shall count as one and a half acres of C
        land mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and
        seven acres of land mentioned in clause (c) of sub-
        se.ction (1);
        (ii) in the areas other than the areas mentioned in sub- 0
        section (2) of.this section, one acre of land mentioned
        in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall count as one and
        a half acres of land mentioned in clause (b) of sub-
        section (1 ), and three acres of land mentioned in
        clause (c) of sub-section (1):                           E
           Provided that on the basis of ratio prescribed in
           clauses (i) and (ii), the permissible area shall be
           converted into the category of land mentioned in
           sub-section (2) and in clause (c) of sub-section (1)
           as the case may be, and the total area so converted F
           shall not exceed 70 acres in case of clause (i) and
           30 acres in case of clause (ii).
     (6) Where a person is a member of the family, the land
     held by such person together with the land held by all the G
     members of the family shall.be taken into account for the
     purpose of calculating the permissible area."
       13. By reading the plain language of Section 4, it provides
that the landowner may be a family, capable of holding property, H
152        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.

A consisting of husband, wife and three minor children. As per
   sub-section (1) of Section 4, the permissible area which a family
   consisting of husband, wife and up to three minor children shall
   be to the extent provided therein. It is, therefore, manifest that
   under Section 4(1) of the Act, the family is limited in terms of
B number of minor children, though in the definition clause, i.e.
   under Section 3(e), "family" is not limited in terms of minor
   children. The family, therefore, will be taken as an individual
   unit for the purpose of determining the permissible area under
   the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 4, however, makes it clear
C that every adult son shall be treated as a separate unit and he
   shall be entitled to the land up to the extent permissible to a
   family under sub-sections (1) and (2) subject to the condition
   that the aggregate land of the family and that of the separate
   units put together shall not exceed twice the area permissible
0
   under the said sub-section. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 further
   makes it clear that where a person is a member of the family,
   the land held by such person together with the land held by all
   the members of the family shall be taken into account for the
E ·purpose of calculating the permissible area.

         14. In other words, by reading the entire provisions of
  Section 4, particularly sub-section (6) of Section 4, it is made
  clear that even if the respondents were holding property in their
F respective individual capacity as a person, land held by them
  will be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the
  permissible area. The provision in its clear term provides one
  kind of an exception in case of an adult son of a person. In that
  case such adult son will be treated as a separate unit and he
G is entitled to have separate unit of permissible area up to the
  extent of the permissible area of a family subject to the condition
  that the aggregate land of the family and that of a separate
  unit put together shall not exceed twice the area permissible.
  If we read sub-section (4) minutely, it comes out that in the first
H part the legislature used the word "separate unit" but in the
 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v.ASHWANI KUMAR                         153
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.J

later part the legislatures have used the word "separate units" A
as plural. The opening words of sub-section (4) of Section 4,
starts with "every adult son of a person" meaning thereby even
if a person has more than one adult son, all will be treated as
separate unit individually but subject to the condition that
aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units put B
together shall not exceed twice the area permissible under
the said sub-section.

     15. Section 6 of the Act reads as under:-

     "6. Ceiling of land: - Notwithstanding anyt~ing to the
                                                                   c
     contrary contained in any law, custom, usage or
     agreement, no person shall be entitled to hold whether
     as a landowner or a tenant or a mortgagee with
     possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another, 0
     the land within the State of Himachal Pradesh exceeding
     the permissible area on or after the appointed day."

      16. Another important provision is Section 17, which
deals with the case of future acquisition of land by inheritance
or otherwise in excess of permissible area or increase in such     E
area as a result of operation of this Act. Section 17 reads as
under:-

     "Section 17: Future acquisition of land by
     inheritance or otherwise in excess of permissible             F
     area or increase in such area as a result of
     operation of this Act: ·
        (1) Subject to the provisions of section 15, if after the
        commencement of this Act, any person, whether as G
        landowner or tenant, acquires by inheritance or by
        bequest or gift from a person to whom he is an heir of
        any land, or any person has acquired by transfer,
        exchange, lease, agreement or settlement any land,
                                                                   H
154   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A      or if, after such commencement, any person acquires
       in any other manner any land, which, with or without
       the lands already owned or held by him, exceeds in
       the aggregate the permissible area or any person
       whose land exceeds the permissible area as a result
B      of the operation of any provision of this Act, then he
       shall, within the period prescribed, furnish to the
       Collector, a return in the prescribed form and manner
       giving the particulars of all lands and selecting the land
       not exceeding in the aggregate the permissible area ·
c      wh[~h he desires to retain, and if the land of such
       person is situate in more than one patwar circle, he
       shall also furnish a declaration required by section 9.
       (2) If he fails to furnish the return and select his land
D      within the prescribed period, then the Collector may
       in respect of him obtain the information required to be
       shown in the return through such agency as he may
       deem fit and select the land for him in the manner
       specified in sub-section (1) of section 8.
E
       (3) If such person fails to furnish the declaration, the
       provisions of (Section 9) shall apply.

       (4) The excess land of such person shall be at the
F      disposal of the State Government for utilization as
       surplus area under section 15 or for such other
       purpose as the State Government may by notification
       direct
         Explanation:- In the case offamily, the return may
G        be furnished by any adult member of the family and
         in the case of the sole minor by his guardian:
         Provided that the Collector shall, before d~termining
         the surplus area, give to all the members of the
H        family an opportunity of being heard."
 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHWANI KUMAR                           155
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

      17. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that when A
any person/landowner acquires or succeeds land which is in
excess of permissible area after the commencement of the
Act, such land holder has to file.separate return to the Collector
as per Rule 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land
Holdings Rules, 1972.                                              B

      18. The High Court passed the impugned order based
on the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in Rajkumar
Rajindra Singh vs. Union oflndia, ILR 1976 HP 453. The
Division Bench of the High Court quoted so.me of the C
paragraphs of Full Bench decision. In order to appreciate the
impugned order, we shall quote paragraphs nos. 17, 18 and
19 of the impugned judgment as under:-

     "17. In Rajkumar Rajinder Singh's case (supra}, Full             D
     Bench of this Court in Paragraph-8 has held as under:~
     " ............. It is the permissible area in the case of a
     person or a family. And it is the permissible area in respect
     of the landholding of such person or family. It is the
     landholding of such person or family alone which forms           E
     the subject-matter of Section 4, and the several sub-
     sections lay down the principles for the mathematical
     computation of the permissible area in respect of
     such land-holding. Section 4 is not concerned with the
     landholding of any other person or family nor with the           F
     transfer of the rights of one landholder in favour of another.
     18. In Paragraph 24, the Full Bench has held that no doubt
     that sub-section (6) of Section 4 contemplates where a
     person is a member of family, the land held by such family G
     together with the land held by all the members of the family
     shall be taken into account for the purposes of calculating
     the permissible area, that question can arise only in
     relation to a family, the provision is concerned only with
     themath~matical computation of the permissible area. H
156       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.

A        19. In paragraph-19, the Full Bench has held:-
         The petitioners say that while a husband and the children
         have the right to hold land a wife has been deprived of
         such right. There is nothing in the Act which can lead to
         that conclusion, A family, consisting of husband, wife and
B
         children has been recognised as a unit for the
         determination of the permissible area, and
         the land holding of the family as such is treated for that
         purpose. If a wife holds land separately in her own right,
c        she is entitled to be treated as an individual person for
         the purposes of determining the permissible area
         available to her."
         19. From perusal of the aforementioned paragraphs of
  the Full Bench judgment, it appears that the High Court has
D completely departed from the plain language used in Section
  4 of the said Act. The High Court has committed serious error
  of law in holding that if a wife holds land separately in her own
  right, she is entitled to be treated as an individual person for
E the purpose of determining the permissible area available to
  her. We are of the definite opinion thatthe Full Bench has not
  rightly interpreted the provisions of the Act.

         20. The submission made by learned counsel appearing
  for the respondents that the impugned judgment needs no
F interference on the principle of stare decisis cannot be
  accepted. The decision relied upon by the respondents in
  the case of Gajnan (supra), this Court held that to maintain
  certainty in the judicial decision the court should refrain from
G interfering with such decision which stood for a long period.
  However, this Court has clearly laid down that this principle
  will be applicable "where the meaning of a statute is ambiguous
  and capable of more interpretations than one".

         21. This Court in Indra Sawhney and others vs. Union
H
 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ASHWANI KUMAR                           157
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

oflndia and others, etc. AIR (1993) SC 477, in paragraph A
26-A of the Judgment, considered the principle of stare decisis
and observed that in the law certainty, consistency and
continuity are highly desirable features. Where a decision has
stood the test of time and has never been doubted, we have
respected it unless, of course, there are compelling and strong B
reasons to depart from it.

      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          C
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 AcUStatute is very clear
and, therefore, principle of stare decisis is of no help to the       D
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          E
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            F
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.
                                                                      G
     25. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the
judgment passed by the High Court.

Devika Gujral                                       Appeal allowed.