Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, NAGARATHNA, J.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department & Another – Appellant
Versus
M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and others - Respondents
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 32257/2021) WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 29713/2018) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 23353/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8909 OF 2016 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 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 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. 23912/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8921 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 24543/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8505 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 24209/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10206 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 24544/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8904 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 25574/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9719 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 26034/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12046 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 26476/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8957 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 27950/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8922 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 28432/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8929 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 29785/2019) IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 17316 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 31560/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8545 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 31822/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9598 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 37443/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11256 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 37444/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11854 OF 2016 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Diary No. 44515/2019) IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9597 OF 2016 CONTEMPT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.735/2018 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
Decided on : 17-03-2023
Key Points: - Delay condoned and petitions were heard together; review/recall allowed in light of Indore Development Authority over Pune Municipal Corporation (Para references and order summary) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) 3 SCC 183 overruled by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129; para 365 overruled Pune and related precedents; discussion on how this affects prior decisions (!) (!) (!) . - Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC bars review merely on subsequent overruling by a larger bench; maintainability hinges on "any other sufficient reason" interpreted in light of para 365-366 and Beghar Foundation; scope narrowed to analogous grounds (Para discussions and p_27, p_34, p_35, p_39-46, p_47-48). - Court recalled/restored cases to merits under Indore Development Authority framework and directed fresh consideration on merits (Para 9, p_9; p_11–p_13). - Limited relief: extension of one year for fresh acquisition proceedings and retention of possession until then; otherwise possession to landowners if no fresh proceedings are initiated (P-105 to P-109; P-52 to P-54). - Observations on maintainability: some judges held review petitions impermissible under the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; others endorsed limited recall in light of substantial legal change (P-29, p_45, p_48).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of proceedings (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. purpose of the review applications (Para 3) |
| 3. basis of arguments for review (Para 4) |
| 4. counterarguments against review (Para 5) |
| 5. court observations on maintainability (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. reaffirmation of review criteria (Para 8) |
| 7. final order and implications (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 56) |
ORDER :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of applications/petitions, all these applications/petitions are decided and disposed of together by this common order.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay caused in filing 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 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 Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 412, while holding that the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and other decisions following the view taken in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are per incuriam, it was 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. It is submitted that pursuant to the liberty reserved in the said decision, the present applications/petitions have been preferred.
4.2 It is further submitted that power to review flows from Article 137 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that once the law has been laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Others (supra) and specifically overruling the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) which was the basis to dispose of/dismiss the respective appeals, the principle of res judicata shall not be applicable on the question of law.
4.3 Learned counsel appea
A review petition cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law; it must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that was not previously available.
Point of law: The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeki....
The court ruled that a party cannot justify an inordinate delay in filing a review petition based on subsequent overruling of a prior decision, as it violates the principles of limitation and suffici....
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
The court clarified that subsequent changes in law do not permit review of earlier judgments under established principles of review jurisdiction, emphasizing the notion of finality in judicial decisi....
Court held that non-payment of compensation to landowners results in lapse of acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of proper deposit per statutory requirements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
