Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1816 - SC - Indian LawsReview petition - appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original appellant, who was the writ petitioner and the review petitioner whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition and the review application - legality of main order - contention is that original appellant continued to remain in possession of the surplus land even after the Repeal Act came into force, all the ceiling proceedings against her in relation to the lands in question stood lapsed in terms of Repeal Act. Legality of main order - HELD THAT - It is found that there is no good ground to invoke extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the appellants(legal representatives of original appellant) are permitted to question the legality of main order dated 14.03.2008 in this appeal. Whether the review order is legally sustainable or not? - HELD THAT - On perusal of the main order dated 14.03.2008, we find that the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner (original appellant herein) failed to prove her possession over the land in question on the date of repeal. It was held that the State had taken possession of the land in the year 1982 as per the panchnama prepared by the State - In review, the High Court held that while recording the aforementioned finding in the main order, no apparent error, whether on facts or law within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, was committed attracting the rigor of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case. Once the finding was recorded by the High Court in the writ petition that the writ petitioner (original appellant) failed to prove her actual possession on the land in question on the date of repeal, such finding could not have been examined de novo in review jurisdiction by the same Court like an Appellate Court on the facts and evidence. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge against the dismissal of review application by High Court. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge against the dismissal of review application The appeal was filed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the review application. The original appellant, who was the writ petitioner, claimed that the ceiling proceedings against her lands stood lapsed after the Repeal Act came into force. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition in 2008, leading to the filing of a review application, which was also dismissed in 2008. The present appeal challenged the review order dated 16.12.2008 in the Supreme Court. Analysis: The Supreme Court noted that the original appellant did not challenge the legality of the main order dated 14.03.2008 in a separate Special Leave Petition (SLP) or in the present appeal. The Court held that it was not called upon to examine the legality and correctness of the main order in the present appeal since the challenge was confined to the review order only. The appellant's request to challenge the main order under Article 142 of the Constitution was rejected based on various reasons provided by the Court. Issue 2: Legality of the review order The main issue for consideration was whether the High Court was right in dismissing the review application filed by the original appellant. The review application was dismissed on the grounds that there was no error apparent on the face of the main order dated 14.03.2008 as required under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Analysis: The Supreme Court clarified that while examining the legality of the review order, it could not delve into the merits of the main order dated 14.03.2008 since the appeal did not arise out of the main order. The Court emphasized that for a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error or mistake must be apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that the review order was passed in conformity with the requirements of the Code and upheld the High Court's decision that the main order did not contain any error justifying recall in the review jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concurred with the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court regarding the dismissal of the review application. The appeal was dismissed as the Court found no merit in challenging the review order, which was held to be legally sustainable.
|