1. Review petitions seeking review of judgments declaring land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, based on a subsequently overruled legal precedent. (Para 2 , 15 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 507
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary and Another – Appellants
Versus
M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 414, 808 of 2023, Miscellaneous Application No. 159 of 2018, R.P. (C) Nos. 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 1731 of 2023, R.P. (C) No. 882 of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos. 4599, 8505, 8511, 8527, 8529, 8545, 8547, 8559, 8898, 8899, 8904, 8909, 8921, 8922, 8925, 8929, 8935, 8952, 8954, 8957, 9049, 9214, 9595, 9597, 9598, 9719, 10206, 11256, 11841, 11846, 11853, 11854, 11857, 12046, 12111, 12114, 12239 of 2016, C.A. No. 1522 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 17316 of 2016, Diary Nos. 14831, 15893 of 2023, Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 735 of 2018
Decided On : 17-05-2024
Important Points
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 decisions while balancing public interest.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Review Jurisdiction
Act Referred
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT: S.4
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.47 R.1, S.114, S.623
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.137, Art.141, Art.142, Art.143, Art.145
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT: S.13, S.14, S.16, S.17, S.18, S.19, S.20, S.24, S.31
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.47 R.1, S.114, S.623
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.137, Art.141, Art.142, Art.143, Art.145
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT: S.13, S.14, S.16, S.17, S.18, S.19, S.20, S.24, S.31
Headnote
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 24(2) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The review petitions were presented against judgments declaring land acquisition proceedings as lapsed. A split verdict from a prior bench led to a larger bench's examination regarding maintainability of the petitions, ultimately concluding that subsequent overruling of earlier decisions does not constitute grounds for review. (Paras 1-4, 18, 120)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - The explanation under Order XLVII CPC prohibits reviews based solely on later legal changes or decisions; courts cannot grant liberty based on overruled precedents to parties on issues that have attained judicial finality. (Paras 90-105)
(C) Public Interest - Even with considerations for public interest, grounds based on previous decisions cannot permit collateral attacks against final judgments to ensure judicial discipline and prevent chaos in the legal system. (Paras 118-120)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - The explanation under Order XLVII CPC prohibits reviews based solely on later legal changes or decisions; courts cannot grant liberty based on overruled precedents to parties on issues that have attained judicial finality. (Paras 90-105)
(C) Public Interest - Even with considerations for public interest, grounds based on previous decisions cannot permit collateral attacks against final judgments to ensure judicial discipline and prevent chaos in the legal system. (Paras 118-120)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
- constitutional law
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himaghn Jain, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Mr. R.P Bansal, Adv. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umrao Singh Rawat, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Qurratulain, AOR Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Iti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Aakarsh Jha, Adv. Mr. Gaurab Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Jain, Adv. Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. N S Vashisht, Adv. Mr. N.s Vashisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Goyal, AOR Mr. Mayank Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Sudeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Malik, Adv. Mr. Bhavya Sethi, Adv. Mr. Akul Mahendru, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Aditya Vashishath, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Mehal, Adv. Ms. Diva Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Raheja, AOR Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Adv. Mr. Sharath Sampath,Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Anand Chichra, Adv. Mr. Deepak Yadav, Adv. M/s. Vedya Partners, AOR Mr. Alok Gupta, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Dinesh K. Garg, Adv. Mr. R.P. Bansal, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Adv. Mr. Davesh Bhatia, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Akriti Chaubey, AOR Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Mr. Vishal Maan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. Mr. Kartik Dabas, Adv. Mr. Jayant Singh, Adv. Mr. Sameer Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Ms. Amrita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Mr. R.P Bansal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv. M/s. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. T. Illayarasu, Adv. Ms. Suveni Bhagat, Adv. Mr. Nihar Harmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Chander Trehan, Adv. Mr. Ankur Bansal, AOR Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivam Goel, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ramya S Goel, Adv. Mr. Pratish Goel, Adv. Mr. Akash Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himaghn Jain, Adv. Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Mr. R.P Bansal, Adv. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umrao Singh Rawat, Adv. Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Qurratulain, AOR Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Iti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Aakarsh Jha, Adv. Mr. Gaurab Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Jain, Adv. Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. N S Vashisht, Adv. Mr. N.s Vashisht, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Goyal, AOR Mr. Mayank Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Mr. Akhil Sachar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Sudeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Malik, Adv. Mr. Bhavya Sethi, Adv. Mr. Akul Mahendru, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Aditya Vashishath, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Mehal, Adv. Ms. Diva Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Raheja, AOR Mr. Bharat Arora, Adv. Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Adv. Mr. Sharath Sampath,Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Anand Chichra, Adv. Mr. Deepak Yadav, Adv. M/s. Vedya Partners, AOR Mr. Alok Gupta, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Dinesh K. Garg, Adv. Mr. R.P. Bansal, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Adv. Mr. Davesh Bhatia, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Akriti Chaubey, AOR Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Mr. Vishal Maan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. Mr. Kartik Dabas, Adv. Mr. Jayant Singh, Adv. Mr. Sameer Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Ms. Amrita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Mr. R.P Bansal, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv. M/s. Saharya & Co., AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. T. Illayarasu, Adv. Ms. Suveni Bhagat, Adv. Mr. Nihar Harmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Chander Trehan, Adv. Mr. Ankur Bansal, AOR Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivam Goel, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ramya S Goel, Adv. Mr. Pratish Goel, Adv. Mr. Akash Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Review petitioners argue subsequent overruling and public interest justify review; respondents contend the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC bars review based on subsequent change in law. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 )
3. Review jurisdiction is limited; subsequent overruling of a determinative judgment does not constitute an error apparent or a sufficient reason for review under the CPC. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 100 , 101 )
4. Subsequent reversal or modification of a question of law by a superior court is not a ground for review under the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. (Para 44 , 89 , 104 )
5. Review petitions and miscellaneous applications dismissed as non-maintainable; however, Article 142 invoked to extend acquisition timelines and provide directions for fresh proceedings and compensation. (Para 118 , 119 , 121 )
6. Does the subsequent overruling of a legal precedent by a superior court provide grounds for reviewing a judgment based on that precedent?
No. The Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC explicitly prohibits review on the ground that a question of law on which the judgment was based has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court. (Para 44 , 89 , 104 )
7. How should the phrase any other sufficient reason be interpreted for the purpose of seeking a review under Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC?
It must be interpreted as a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to the other specified grounds, namely the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 42 , 100 , 101 )
8. Can a court use its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC or Article 142 to grant a review that is statutorily barred by the CPC?
Inherent powers cannot be invoked to override statutory prohibitions or create remedies not contemplated by the Code when a specific remedy, such as review under Order XLVII, already exists. (Para 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 )
9. Are miscellaneous applications for clarification or recall maintainable if they are essentially review petitions in disguise?
No. Applications styled as miscellaneous applications that are in substance review petitions are not maintainable, as parties cannot do indirectly what they are prohibited from doing directly. (Para 113 , 114 , 115 )
JUDGMENT :
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | |
| (A) | PREFACE |
| (B) | THE REFERENCE |
| (C) | JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY |
| (D) | FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE REVIEW PETITIONS |
| (E) | THE SPLIT VERDICT |
| (F) | SUBMISSIONS |
| (G) | QUESTIONS BEFORE US |
| (H) | LAW ON REVIEW JURISDICTION |
| (I) | PRECEDENTS CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION |
| (J) | OTHER PRECEDENTS ON REVIEW |
| (K) | ANALYSIS |
| (L) | CONCLUSION |
(A) PREFACE
1. Day in and day out, as Judges of this Court, we are majorly addressed by learned counsel for the parties that the High Courts are either right or wrong; here, in view of a split verdict rendered by an Hon’ble Division Bench (“said Division Bench” hereafter) comprising two Hon’ble Judges of this Court, we have been addressed by the parties that our distinguished colleagues on the Bench have been right and wrong at the same time. To complete the task that has been entrusted to us, one of the opinions of the Hon’ble Judges comprising the said Division Bench has to be held incorrect unless, of course, harmonization of the two opinions, in any manner, is possible. In the process of considering the rival claims, the exercise of declaring one view as correct and the other incorrect or to harmonize the two views, have necessarily taken us back to the basics of the substantive and procedural laws regulating review jurisdiction of this Court. The effort, we have no hesitation to say, has been really educative as well as rewarding because the erudite arguments advanced from the Bar opened up a new vista of thinking to appreciate points of debate that emerged not only from the facts of the petitions before us but also points arising from certain connected matters, decided by this Court. We record our sincere appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the members of the Bar who had the occasion to address this larger Bench.
(B) THE REFERENCE
2. The two Hon’ble Judges comprising the said Division Bench were considering a clutch of review petitions (“RPs” hereafter), presented either by the Delhi Development Authority or the Government of NCT, Delhi, or the Land and Building Department, etc. (“review petitioners” hereafter). The RPs urged review of the judgments/orders passed by this Court on either Civil Appeals or Special Leave Petitions carried by the review petitioners from judgments and orders of the High Court of Delhi (“High Court” hereafter), declaring land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act” hereafter) as deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (“2013 Act” hereafter). By the judgments/orders under review, the said Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions stood dismissed. The RPs having been listed before the said Division Bench, the respondents therein (i.e. landowners) had questioned the maintainability of the same by referring to the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereafter). As noted earlier, a split verdict emerged in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others , 2023 SCC Online SC 288 being the lead matter. Briefly put, the Hon’ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruled in favour of maintainability of the RPs whereas the Hon’ble companion Judge on the Bench disagreed and held that the RPs were not maintainable. An order was, thus, made by the Bench on 17th March, 2023 requiring the papers of the RPs to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Such order has been the immediate reason for His Lordship to constitute this larger Bench and refer the RPs to resolve which of the two views on maintainability of the RPs is the correct view; hence, all such RPs are now before this larger Bench.
(C) JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY
3. Before delving deep into the intricacies presented by the reference, it would be apposite to trace the judicial trajectory of proceedings in this Court on interpretation of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act t
