9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L APPEAL NO. 12111 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 6119/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8935 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 6120/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8954 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 6131/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9049 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 7653/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8559 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 7922/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8511 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 8510/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8925 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 8554/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9214 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 9317/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12114 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 20589/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9595 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 21094/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8898 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 21378/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11853 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 22637/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4599 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deswal, Adv. Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Bhavana Moolchandani, Adv. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. S. K. Rajora, Adv. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Sudeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Malik, Adv. Mr. Akul Mahendru, Adv. Mr. Bhavya Sethi, Adv. Mr. Sameeer Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Raheja, AOR Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Dr. Sham Chand, Adv. Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nina R Nariman, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alok Gupta, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. R.P Bansal, Adv. Mr. R.jawaharal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bawa, Adv. Mr. Anuj Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohit, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Ms. Abha Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankur Bansal, AOR Mr. Davesh Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akriti Chaubey, AOR Mr. Anirudh Bakru, Adv. Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Adv. Mr. Ayush Puri, Adv. Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ghawana, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as the '2013 Act'), reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183. It is the case on behalf of the applicants that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which was relied upon while dismissing/disposing off all the respective appeals has been specifically overruled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. It is submitted on behalf of the respective applicants that by specifically overruling the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically observed and held that not only the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is overruled, but all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed are also overruled. Heavy reliance is placed upon para 365 of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). 4.1 It is further submitted on behalf of the applicants that this Court in the earlier decision in the case of Indo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Others v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613 in support of his submissions that as held by this Court that the decision on question of law where the law is altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as res judicata. 4.6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 171, it is submitted that as observed and held by this Court a judicial decision acts retrospectively. It is submitted that it is further observed that if a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, the later decision does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. It is submitted that it is further observed that to put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. 4.7 It is further submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respective respondents if the matters are heard afresh on merits and the respective respondents/landowners will be heard on merits on all points. 5. All these review applications are opposed by Shri Shyam Divan, Sri V. Giri, Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, Shri Vivek Chib, learned Senior Advocates and other counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 5.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respective respondents that the applicants have admittedly filed the instant review applications seeking review of the orders passed by this Court based on a subsequent decision. It is submitted that change in law in view of the subsequent decision of the Court cannot be a ground for review. It is submitted that even if the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) has overruled the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the settled position inter parties may not be affected. 5.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise the judgment in Indore Development Authority (supra) may be construed to be prospective in its operation and cannot reopen claims/cases which have already attained finality. 5.3 It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. It is urged that therefore para 365 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) does not aid the review petitioners. 5.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents that even otherwise none of the conditions enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules are satisfied. That the review petitions are filed under Article 137 of the Constitution r/w Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules. That Article 137 states that "subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145", this Court shall have power to review its decision. It is submitted that Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules states that "no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. That Order 47 Rule 1 CPC states that a review petition may be preferred on the following grounds, (a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him, OR (b) order made, or on account of some mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in all these cases, the respective Civil Appeals have been dismissed/disposed of, confirming the orders passed by the respective High Courts, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). However, it is required to be noted that in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 1 SCC 733, correctness of the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was doubted. The matter was placed before the three Judge Bench. By a majority decision, the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was held to be per incuriam. While holding so and overruling the decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. (supra) and other decisions following the said decision to the extent they were in conflict with the three Judge Bench decision, this Court also observed that the decisions rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of the said decision. That is how, the applicants have preferred the present review applications in view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. (supra) and the observations made in para 365 in the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), reproduced hereinabove. 7. It is also required to be noted that in similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court had condoned the delay and reviewed/recalled the similar order in which the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was relied upon. It may be true that in some cases, the review applications have been dismissed. However, considering the orders passed in rejecting review applications, it appears that attention of the Court to paras 365 and 366 of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) and para 217 of the earlier decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. (supra) were not brought to the notice of the Court. 8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respective respondents that the case does not fall under Order 47 CPC and that the subsequent overruling cannot be a ground to review the earlier order(s) is concerned, at the outset, it is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment proposed by His Lordship M.R. Shah, J. in these review petitions. However, I am unable to agree with the reasoning as well as the conclusions arrived at by him. 2. In these batch of cases, the issue revolves around in my view the very maintainability of these review petitions both on the ground of delay and on a consideration of Article 137 of the Constitution of India as well as Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (for short, "S.C. Rules - 2013") and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short). The aforesaid provisions are respectively extracted as under for immediate reference: "Article 137 of the Constitution of India: '137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court. -Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.' ****** Order XLVII Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013: 'Order XLVII Rule 1- The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of L.A. Act, 2013, is relevant for the purpose of these review petitions. The said provision reads as under: "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "4.1. (1) What is the meaning of the expression "paid"/"tender" in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act") and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the 1894 Act")? Whether non-deposit of compensation in court under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act results into lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. What are the consequences of non-deposit in court especially when compensation has been tendered and refused under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? Whether such persons after refusal can take advantage of their wrong/conduct? 4.1. (2) Whether the word "or" should be read as conjunctive or disjunctive in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? 4.1. (3) What is the true effect of the proviso, does it form part of sub-section (2) or main Section 24 of the 2013 Act? 4.1. (4) What is mode of taking possession under the Land Acquisition Act and true meaning of expression 'the physical possession of the land has not been taken' occurring in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? 4.1. (5) Whether the period covered by an interim order of a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all other judgments following Pune Municipal Corporation have now been overruled, the review petitioners, who are either the acquiring body/State or the beneficiary have preferred these review petitions. 11. The object and purpose of filing these review petitions is to seek review of the judgment impugned in the review petitions and for rehearing of the Special Leave Petitions or the Civil Appeals, as the case may be, which were disposed of in terms of Pune Municipal Corporation, in light of the latest pronouncement of this Court in Indore Development Authority. 12. According to Sri Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, on an interpretation of para 365 of Indore Development Authority, it is clear that not only the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation is overruled but all other judgments following the said decision also stand overruled. Consequently, the judgements passed by this Court following the dictum in Pune Municipal Corporation are subject to review and hence these review petitions have been filed. 13. The main plea of the review petitioners is to recall the judgments/orders impugned in the review petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the subsequent decision of the superior Court, it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. Thus, the contention on behalf of the respondents is that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following the aforesaid judgment, having been overruled, would cease to be a precedent for future cases. It is submitted that merely because the Larger Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority has laid down the new law by a different interpretation being given to Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of L.A. Act, 2013, it cannot give rise to a review of the judgment passed in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following Pune Municipal Corporation. 16. Learned senior counsel for the respondents further submitted that there is delay in filing the review petitions. 17. Learned senior counsel, Sri Shyam Divan, appearing for one of the respondents, placed reliance on the two judgments of this Court: (i) Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 75, with particular reference to para 52 thereof to contend that having regard to the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration is, whether, the judgment passed in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following the said dictum, which have been overruled, could be reviewed by entertaining these review petitions and the said orders be recalled and the said cases be reheard and decided in light of Indore Development Authority. 20. At the outset, it is observed that this is not a case where the question involved is, whether, the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation calls for a review or reconsideration. It has already been reconsidered by this Court, by the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority. The pertinent question involved in this case is, whether, the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation having been overruled and all other judgments following Pune Municipal Corporation having been overruled in Indore Development Authority, would call for review of all those judgments despite having attained finality between the parties. In other words, whether, on the basis of a subsequent decision, on a pure question of law, the earlier decisions arrived at, on the basis of law as it was, could now be recalled at the instance of one of the parties to the earlier decisions. 21. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent between the parties can be reconsidered." 25. When a review application is filed by an aggrieved party, the same can be dismissed ex parte without issuing notice to the other side on the ground that there is no sufficient ground to call upon the opposite party to show cause as to why review should not be granted. If notice is issued to the other side, then, after hearing both sides, it is necessary to consider whether the review petition ought to be allowed or rejected. It is at that stage the maintainability of the review petition would also have to be considered such as if there is a bar to the very maintainability of the review petition having regard to the scope to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Then, the review petition has to be dismissed at that stage itself. But, if the Court is convinced that there is ground for reviewing the order or judgment impugned, then the review petition has to be allowed by recalling the orders sought to be reviewed. Thereafter, the matter has to be reheard on merits by the Court. After rehearing the case, the Court may either confirm the original order or modify it. An order made subsequently whether reversing, confirming or modifying the earlier or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Court to which the application for review is made. 29. In the present batch of cases, serious arguments have been advanced on both sides on, what I consider, the maintainability of these review petitions revolving around the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Hence, in my view, the recalling of the judgments passed following the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, which is no doubt, overruled, will have to be reconsidered in light of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 30. On a consideration of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is noted that there are three main grounds referred to above on which a review of a decree or order could be sought by an aggrieved person. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners herein, on the expression "sufficient reason" so as to contend that since Pune Municipal Corporation was decided contrary to the intent and purport of Section 24(2) of L.A. Act, 2013 and the same has been overruled by a Larger Bench comprising of five Judges in Indore Development Authority, there is sufficient reason to review all judgments passed by this Court following Pune Municipal Corporation. Hence, the present review petitions have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgments of the (i) Privy Council in Chajju Ram vs. Neki AIR 1922 P.C. 112; Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi vs. Parath Nath AIR 1934 P.C. 213; (ii) Federal Court in Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter AIR 1949 FC 106, and, (iii) This Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Paulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 have held that words must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the Rule". 35. In Chajju Ram vs. Neki (supra), the Privy Council held that there cannot be a review on the ground that the judgment proceeded on an incorrect exposition of law. Further, the Court has no jurisdiction to order a review because it was of the opinion that a different conclusion of law should have been arrived at. It was also observed that if a decision is erroneous in law that is not a ground for ordering review. If a court has decided a point erroneously, the error could not be one apparent on the face of the record or even analogous to it. Therefore, subsequent events or the fact that the Court took a different view in a subsequent case is not a sufficient reason for granting review (vide Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC). 36. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clude something from the ambit of the main enactment or the connotation of some words occurring in it. Even a negative Explanation which excludes certain types or a category from the ambit of the Section may have the effect of showing that the category leaving aside the excepted types is included within it. An Explanation can also be added to serve as a proviso to the main Section vide Y.P. Chawla and Others vs. M.P. Tiwari and another AIR 1992 SC 1360. When an Explanation is in the nature of a proviso, it is used to remove special cases from the general provision and provide for them especially. Sometimes an Explanation is added to clarify a doubtful point of law as in the instant case the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has been inserted by the amendment made in the year 1976. [Source: G.P. Singh's "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" - 15th Edition]. 39. It is also in the nature of an exception intended to restrain the enacting clause to particular cases. The Explanation in the instant case being in the nature of a proviso is a qualifying or excepting provision to what is stated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which state the grounds for seeking a review. Hence, the object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er lis. In that lis, the principle of res judicata would continue to operate. But in tax cases relating to a subsequent year involving the same issue as an earlier year, the Court can differ from the view expressed if the case is distinguishable or per incuriam. 43. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments in their arguments as well as reply arguments: (a) Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy (supra) was a question related to jurisdiction of a Court which cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the court. It was observed that if by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not, operate as res judicata. Similarly, by an erroneous decision if the court assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the parties, whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise, because if those decisions are considered as conclusive, it will assume the status of a special rule of law applicable to the parties relating to the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1961. The above decision is also not applicable in the instant case for the reason that when Pune Municipal Corporation was decided there was no judgment of Indore Development Authority. The decision of the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority is not prior to but subsequent to the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. The judgment and decision in Pune Municipal Corporation dated 08.02.2018 held the field till the judgment in Indore Development Authority which was pronounced on 06.03.2020. Therefore, the judgment in Indore Development Authority being a subsequent decision cannot give rise to review and recall of the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation as well as other judgments following the aforesaid case, on the basis that judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled in the subsequent case, namely, Indore Development Authority. (c) In Shakuntla Devi vs. Kamla (2005) 5 SCC 390, a declaratory decree was granted on the basis of law as it stood then i.e. the date when the declaratory decree was passed. But by the time the second declaratory decree was passed between the same parties in a subsequent suit, this Court had declared the law under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeking reliefs based on the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation. It is necessary to emphasise that these review petitions have been filed before this Court to review the judgments/orders passed by this Court on the basis of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation which has been overruled by a subsequent judgment in Indore Development Authority. In my view, these review petitions are not maintainable in view of the bar contained in the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. (d) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the expression "sufficient reason" found in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC being a ground for review in these cases. In this regard, he placed reliance on Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club, wherein it was observed that an application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason thereof. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said case, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Privy Council in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (supra), dealing with the limitations in the application of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Explanation provided in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC review in these cases is impermissible. 45. A few judgments of this Court could be referred to at this stage in support of the view that I wish to take in this case: a) In Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC 78, it has been observed that one of the parameters prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for allowing the review petition for rehearing the case is "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the later to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulates a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. It was further observed categorically that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to review must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned." (b) In fact, in Madan Mohan Pathak & Anr. vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 803; (1978) 2 SCC 50, a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question whether Parliament enacting an Act consequent upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court would unsettle the binding effect of the said judgment. In that case, the appeal filed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was not pressed before this Court and the said judgment was allowed to become final. This Court held that there was nothing in the Act passed subsequent to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had nullified the effect of the same or which could unsettle the judgment or take away the binding character of the same. In the circumstances, it was held that Life Insurance Corporation which was a party in that case was liable to make the payment of cash bonus for the year 1975-1976 to its Class III and IV employees in accordance with the said judgment of the Calcutta High Court as it was not absolved of the obligations imposed by the said judgment despite the Parliament passing an Act subsequent thereto on the ground that the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econsideration of a judgment of this Court is sought, there are two limitations which have been observed - one jurisdictional and the other self-imposed. The same has been explained in Natural Resources Allocation, in Re: Special reference no. 1 of 2012, speaking through D.K. Jain, J., as under: "The first limitation is that a decision of this Court could be reviewed only under Article 137 or a curative petition and in no other way. Once a lis between parties is decided, the operative decree can only be opened in review. Overruling the judgment- as a precedent-does not reopen the decree. The second limitation, a self-imposed rule of judicial discipline, was that overruling the opinion of the Court on a legal issue does not constitute sitting in appeal, but is done only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the earlier decision is per incuriam or is delivered in the absence of relevant or material facts or if it is manifestly wrong and capable of causing public mischief." It was further observed that "in fact, the overruling of a principle of law is not an outcome of appellate jurisdiction but a consequence of its inherent power. This inherent power can be exercised as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed erroneously, the error could not be construed as being one apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Reliance was also placed on Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 and it was observed that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". (iii) In Nalagarh Dehati Coop. Transport Society Ltd. vs. Beli Ram AIR 1981 HP 1, a Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court considered the Explanation and held that a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court or a Larger Bench of the same Court taking a contrary view on the point covered by the judgment does not amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed. (iv) Reference was also made to Gyan Chandra Dwivedi vs. 2nd ADJ, Kanpur AIR 1987 All 40, in which it was observed that almost all the High Courts except Ker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be maintainable as under: - "(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications, (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import, (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice, (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error, (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review, (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched, (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition, and (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 47. In fact, in State of Haryana vs. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Corporation Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 585, this Court directed that pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the "decisions rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation are open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of this decision". However, the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority did not observe the above, either in paragraph 365 of the judgment or any other paragraph. In fact, the reason as to why a Larger Bench of five Judges was constituted, was because a majority of 2:1 in Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra had taken a view that Pune Municipal Corporation was per incuriam and also the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was by a Two-Judge Bench. Therefore, in order to make an authoritative pronouncement on the question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 24(2) of L.A. Act, 2013 and since there were many orders passed by this Court questioning the correctness of the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, a Larger Bench of five Judges was constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. Now, the unanimous judgment of the Larger Bench of five Judges holds the field. However, in paragraph 365 of the said judgment or in any other paragraph, there is no observation that on overruling the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court in the impugned judgments reserved liberty to the petitioners herein to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh within one year in some of the cases failing which the land was to be returned to the land owners if in possession of the review petitioners herein. Thus, if no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year by issuing a notification under Section 11 of the L.A. 2013 Act and if the review petitioners herein are in possession of the land, the physical possession thereof shall be returned to original land owners. 53. In the circumstances, the only relief that can be granted to the review petitioners/applicants is to extend the period for initiation of acquisition under the provisions of L.A. Act, 2013 to a period of one year from today. Till then, in those cases where physical possession of the land has already been taken over by the acquiring body or has been handed over to the beneficiary the same shall continue to remain with the acquiring body or the beneficiary, as the case may be. 54. Thus, only a limited relief is being given to the review petitioners/applicants and impugned judgments/orders of this Court are not being rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
