9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an 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. Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the S.C. Rules, 2013 made by virtue of Article 145 of the Constitution of India states that, in any civil case, review lies on any of the grounds stated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the scope and power to review a judgment or order by the Supreme Court is restricted to the contours of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Further, thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d mean a Larger Bench of this Court which would pass a judgment or order contrary to the judgments sought to be reviewed. Having regard to the scope and ambit of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, these review petitions are not maintainable and the judgment and the orders of this Court ought not be reviewed and the review petitions are liable to be dismissed. The review petitions are disposed of. - MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 14614/2018) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8529 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 36340/2018) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11857 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 41755/2018) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8899 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 42234/2018) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8527 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 44917/2018) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8547 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 46131/2018) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8952 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 2230/2019) IN CIVIL 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 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... APPEAL NO. 9597 OF 2016 CONTEMPT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.735/2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11857/2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 159/2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11857 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 5715/2022) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11841 OF 2016 REVIEW PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 882/2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11846 OF 2016 B.V. NAGARATHNA J. For the Parties Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Qurratulain, AOR, Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Adv., Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pratish Goel, Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, AOR Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv. M/S. Saharya Co., AOR Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Mr. B P Singh, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Ishita 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respective review/recall applications is hereby condoned. 3. All these applications under Article 137 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) have been preferred by the Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority to review and recall the orders passed in the respective Civil Appeals in dismissing/disposing off the same and to restore the same to their original files to consider the same on merits. 4. Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi and other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority have vehemently submitted that while dismissing/disposing off all the respective Civil Appeals and holding and/or confirming the judgments of the respective High Courts declaring that the acquisition of the lands in question have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter 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 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Civil Appeal No. 877/2014. It is submitted that in that view of the matter also, the orders passed in the respective civil appeals dismissing/disposing off the same relying upon the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are also required to be reviewed/recalled. 4.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective applicants have also relied upon some of the subsequent orders passed by this Court recalling similar orders dismissing/disposing off the civil appeals in which the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was relied upon and the respective proceedings are ordered to be restored to their original file in which the effect of the subsequent judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is under consideration. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court dated 15.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 21678/2020. 4.5 Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid decision it is further observed and held by this Court that the words sufficient reason in order 47 Rule 1 CPC are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. It is further observed that an application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. 4.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed to allow the present applications and review/recall the earlier orders passed in the respective Civil Appeals dismissing/disposing off the same, relying upon the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which has been subsequently overruled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and thereafter to decide and dispose of the same in light of the subsequent decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). It is submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to 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 op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of the competent Court that has followed the aforesaid judgments. That the effect of overruling of the judgment could only be to address the precedential value of the judgments so overruled but cannot set at naught the decree that has been passed in that regard. It is submitted that by overruling a decision, the overruled judgment will lose its precedential value and nothing more than that. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of BSNL v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1. That in the said decision, it is observed that the overruling would not affect the binding nature of a decision between the parties to the lis. 5.5.1 Shri Divan, learned Senior Advocate has also relied upon the recent decision of this Court in the case of Neelima Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 610) in support of his submission that as held by this Court that mere overruling of the principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding effect of the decision inter-parties. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1 has observed that change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 5.8 Learned counsel for the respective respondents have submitted that in some of the cases, similar review petitions post Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) have been dismissed. It is submitted that merely because the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been recalled subsequently may not be a ground to review and/or recall the orders passed in the present cases and that too after such a long delay. It is submitted that the order of recall does not in any manner afford any additional impetus to the applicants to seek a review of the judgment in the present cases. 5.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the review applications. 6. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitution Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision has not only observed that the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is overruled but has also specifically observed that all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed, are also overruled. I have to give some meaning to the said observations. Thus, in view of the above specific observations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the objections, as above, raised on behalf of the respective respondents are to be overruled. None of the submissions/decisions relied upon on behalf of the respective respondents shall be of any assistance to the respondents, though there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the relied upon judgments/decisions on the review jurisdiction, more particularly, in view of the observations made in para 217 in the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these review/recall applications are allowed. The orders passed in the respective Civil Appeals are hereby recalled and the respective Civil Appeals are hereby ordered to be restored to their original file. Let the said Civil Appeals be considered in accordance with law and on their own merits and in light of the decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra). All the defences and/or contentions which may be available to the respective parties are kept open including the possession and neither I have entered into the questions on merits nor expressed anything on merits in favour of either of the parties. 10. In view of the order passed in the review applications, no further order is required to be passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 735/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11857/2016, which stands disposed of. NAGARATHNA, J. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which he applies for the review. Explanation The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. (Emphasis by me) 3. Before applying the said provisions to these review petitions, it is necessary to give a brief factual background to these cases. 4. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, L.A. Act, 1894 ) was a pre-Independence legislation applicable to acquisition of land on the principle of eminent domain. The same was repealed and substituted by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( L.A. Act, 2013 for the sake of convenience). L.A. Act, 2013 came into effect from 01.01.2014. Section 24 with particular reference to Section 24 (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 acquisitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned prima facie that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation appears to be per incuriam while Shantanagoudar J. dissented on one point. Consequently, the Bench ordered that the matters could be listed before the appropriate Bench subject to the orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice of India. Later, in Indore Development Authority vs. Shyam Verma (2018) SCC Online SC 3324, this Court considered it appropriate to again place the matter before Hon ble the Chief Justice of India to refer the issues to be resolved by a Larger Bench. There were other cases also touching upon the same controversy which were referred to a Larger Bench and ultimately, in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, a five-Judge Bench was constituted by the Hon ble Chief Justice of India, which, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following questions for consideration: 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and compensation has to be read as nor or as and . The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression paid in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether or has to be read as nor or as and was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment. 10. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment passed in Indore Development Authority by the Five-Judge Bench and having regard to the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation and 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en opined in paragraph 365 is to denude the judgment passed in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments or orders following Pune Municipal Corporation of their precedential authority and effect. This implies that the said judgment cannot be cited as a precedent in future in view of the subsequent law being laid down by the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority by overruling the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. However, the judgment themselves do not get effaced and they are binding on the parties to the said cases although they can no longer be cited as a precedent. Heavy reliance has been placed on the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to contend that when a decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court has been reversed or modified by 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 Indor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and all other judgments following the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation have also been overruled, there is good ground to review and reopen all previous judgments passed on the basis of the overruled judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. Hence, these review petitions are maintainable and ought to be allowed. In this regard, learned counsel for the review petitioners placed reliance on The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 661. 19. Having regard to the rival submissions made, I find that the bone of contention between the parties is with regard to the maintainability of these review petitions bearing in mind the scope and purport of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and particularly, the Explanation thereto. In other words, the point 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause tried or argued before them, expounding the law as applied to the case, and detailing the reasons upon which the judgment is based . It explains the difference between a decision and opinion as follows: Decision is not necessarily synonymous with opinion . A decision of the court is its judgment; the opinion is the reasons given for that judgment, or the expression of the views of the Judge. 24. This Court while considering the difference between the two expressions, namely, decision and opinion or view of law stated that, it is necessary to bear in mind that the principles in regard to the highest Court departing from its binding precedent are different from the grounds on which a final judgment 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the decree was passed or order made, or ii) due to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or iii) on account of any other sufficient reason, may seek review of a judgment or order of this Court. 28. Thus, it is noted that any person considering himself aggrieved can seek review of the judgment or order only on the aforesaid three grounds and none other. In the instance case, according to petitioners counsel, the first and second grounds for review do not apply. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the third ground. The third ground is on account of any other sufficient reason . The said expression may mean that the reason must be sufficient 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation by a subsequent decision of a Larger Bench of five Judges in Indore Development Authority is not a ground for review and recall of the very decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC bars the review petition being entertained in the instant cases. Hence, in these cases, the review petitions may have to be rejected/dismissed. 34. The expression any other sufficient reason which is a ground for review and which is the sheet anchor of the petitioner s review petition has not been defined in the Code. However, 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is in the nature of an exception to the expression for any other sufficient reason . This would mean that if, in the mind of a Court there is a sufficient reason for the review of a judgment, it cannot be on the ground/reason covered in the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the circumstances mentioned in the Explanation would be an exception and is outside the scope and ambit of for any other sufficient reason . 38. An Explanation is at times appended to a Section to explain the object and content as well as the meaning of words contained in the Section. An Explanation may be added to include something within or to exclude 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 cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the judgments sought to be reviewed. 42. However, in taxation matters, the position is slightly different. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1, it was observed that overruling of a decision takes place in a subsequent lis where the precedential value of the decision is called in question. That in our judicial system, it is open to a Court of superior jurisdiction or strength before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength is cited to act as an authority to overrule such a decision. But this overruling would not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the parties to an earlier 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. The same would be contrary to the Explanation in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. (b) Similarly, reliance was placed on Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (supra). A judgment which was pronounced earlier by a superior Court and holding the field, was not noticed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, subsequently, while deciding a matter. Hence, it was observed that there was a mistake apparent from the record as there was non-consideration of a binding decision of superior Court by the said Tribunal. Hence, the same could be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st suit which was not found to be a lawful decree as per the law prevailing at the time when the second suit was considered. The aforesaid decision does not apply to the present case as herein, review petitions have been filed seeking review of the judgments passed by this Court on the basis of the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation which has been subsequently overruled by this Court in Indore Development Authority on a pure question of law and the review petitions are hit by the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. This is not a case where a subsequent fresh petition has been filed before the High Court seeking 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 suffi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as already observed, is an exception to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Hence, the aforesaid judgment does not apply to the instance cases. 44. The aforesaid cases turn on their own facts and do not fall within the scope of exception which is in the nature of an Explanation. The aforesaid judgments cannot be a precedent in the instant case where the review petition has been filed in order to set at naught the impugned orders following the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation passed by this Court which held the field till it was subsequently overruled in Indore Development Authority. Having regard to the 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 appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er XLVII Rule 1 CPC as well as the Rules framed by the Supreme Court. Thus, the expression for any other sufficient reason has been intentionally used in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC by the Legislature to cater to possible exceptional cases in which injustice may have been meted out. 46. The following relevant judgments could also be discussed at this stage: (a) Reliance could be placed on State of Gujarat Anr. vs. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) (2013) 3 SCC 1, wherein following several earlier decisions of this Court, it was observed that a decision does not lose its authority merely because 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 ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14) 6 SCC 351, in which it was stated that a decision rendered by a competent Court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason that if it is permitted to do so there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of the proceeding would cease to have any meaning . It was further observed that it is not permissible in law for the parties to reopen concluded judgments of the Court as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court but would have a far-reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice. (e) When reconsideration 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion on the issue, the Law Commission took cognizance of the same and suggested an amendment to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which led to the insertion of the Explanation after Order XLVII Rule 2 CPC. The following cases were referred to in the aforesaid judgment: (i) Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter 1949 FCR 36, a Five-Judge Bench decision of the Federal Court was alluded to, wherein it was observed that if a decision is erroneous in law, the same is certainly no ground for ordering review. Moreover, if the case had been decided 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an essential principle for exercising review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is that the review will be maintainable for any other sufficient reason , and has narrowed the scope of this ground to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule. (i) In the aforesaid case Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese Iron Ores Ltd. Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 has also been adverted to wherein this Court delineated on some of the grounds as to when the review will not 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. This would open a Pandora s Box and upset the binding nature of the decisions between the parties and be contrary to the doctrine of finality in litigation. 50. In Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (supra), a majority of two Hon ble Judges in paragraph 217 while opining that, the judgment rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation and other decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation are per incuriam observed that 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, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eviewed by the petitioners is impermissible in law, the ground realities would also have to be now taken into consideration on account of the passage of time. It is noted that Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013 is in the nature of a saving clause which is evident on a reading of the same, including the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013. The object is to save the acquisition as far as possible. Possibly taking a cue from the proviso, 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 provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
