IMPORTANT POINT
Review court cannot act like an appellate court.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Review Application No.77 of 2012 in W.A. No.868 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the review application filed by the appellants herein as not maintainable and also on merits and order dated 02.09.2008 in WA No.868 of 2001 whereby the Division Bench set aside the order dated 06.01.1997 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court which was in favour of the appellants herein.

3) These appeals involve a short point. Few facts need mention infra to appreciate the point involved in the appeals.

4) The appellants herein are the writ petitioners before the High Court in the writ proceedings out of which these appeals arise.

5) The appellants claim to be the owners of the land in question admeasuring around 1.52 acres in Survey No.142/1A situated at Ganapathi Village, Coimbatore Taluk.

6) The land in question was the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the year 1985 at the instance of State of Tamil Nadu, which had issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act for its acquisition. The appellants, felt aggrieved of the acquisition of their land in question, filed Writ Petition No.5220 of 1987 in the High Court at Madras and questioned therein the legality and correctness of the entire acquisition proceedings including the orders in G.O. Ms. No.1119, Social Welfare Department dated 15.05.1985 and G.O.Ms. No.1536, Social Welfare Department dated 18.06.1986.

7) The challenge to the acquisition proceedings was on several grounds as is clear from the grounds taken by the appellants (writ petitioners) in the writ petition and the SLP.

8) The writ petition was contested by the State wherein it defended the acquisition proceedings as being legal, proper and in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

9) The Single Judge, by order dated 06.01.1997, allowed the appellants’ writ petition and quashed G.O.Ms. No.1119 dated 15.05.1985 and G.O. Ms. No. 1536 dated 18.06.1986.

10) The State felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench out of which these appeals arise. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the State's appeal and while setting aside the order of the Single Judge dismissed the appellants’ writ petition. In other words, the acquisition proceedings were upheld by the Division Bench as being legal and proper. Against the said order, review application was filed by the appellants herein but it was dismissed. It is against these two orders of the Division Bench, the writ petitioners felt aggrieved and filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

11) Heard Mr. A Mariarputham, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, learned senior counsel, Mr. B. Balaji and Mr. K.V. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

12) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting aside the impugned orders, remand the case to the Division Bench for deciding the writ petition filed by the appellants afresh on merits.

13) In our considered opinion, the reasons to remand the case to the Division Bench are more than one, which are set out hereinbelow.

14) First, the Division Bench in Paras 4 and 5 of its main order dated 02.09.2008 in W.A.No.868 of 2001 having rightly observed that the Single Judge neither discussed any issue nor gave his reasoning and nor even dealt with any of the grounds raised by the parties in support of their case and yet allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings erred in not dealing with any of the issues arising in the case, It is apposite to reproduce paras 4 and 5 hereinbelow:

“4. From the impugned order passed by the learned Single