Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In land disputes, tribunals play a crucial role in resolving conflicts over property rights, tenancy, and acquisition. But what happens when a party believes a tribunal's order is flawed? A common question arises: whether land tribunal have the power to review the land tribunal order? This issue is pivotal for landowners, tenants, and legal practitioners navigating India's complex land laws.
This blog post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key judgments and statutory principles. While tribunals offer efficient dispute resolution, their authority is strictly limited by law. Understanding these boundaries can prevent futile applications and guide appropriate remedies. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The land tribunal generally does not have the authority to review its own orders, especially decisions on merits or ex parte orders, unless explicitly provided by law or rules. Its power to review is limited to specific procedural or interlocutory matters, and such review must be conducted within the scope of statutory provisions and established legal principles. RAVI KALYANI AMMA VS THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KANJIKUZHY - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 41
This position ensures finality in decisions while allowing corrections for obvious errors, upholding the balance between justice and judicial efficiency.
These principles stem from the statutory nature of tribunals, which lack the broad powers of civil courts.
Courts have consistently held that land tribunals' review authority is confined to procedural or interlocutory contexts. For example, in a key ruling, the court quashed a tribunal's review order passed without notice to the affected party, stating: the power of the Land Tribunal to review its own order cannot be exercised without notice to the affected party. RAVI KALYANI AMMA VS THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KANJIKUZHY - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 41 The matter was remanded for fresh disposal, emphasizing that review is not inherent but must follow legal authorization.
This underscores notice requirements and procedural fairness as prerequisites.
Land tribunals cannot set aside ex parte orders or re-hear applications on merits without explicit statutory backing. As held: The Land Tribunal does not have the power to set aside an ex parte order or to re-hear the application on which orders had been passed, unless such power is explicitly conferred by law. Kuttapan VS Chellamma - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 122 Tribunals' powers are enumerated, preventing them from acting like appellate bodies.
Limited exceptions exist for correcting apparent errors or procedural lapses. The tribunal and appellate authorities may rectify mistakes in interlocutory orders but cannot revisit substantive merits. Mathai VS Anna - 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 489
Orders procured by fraud or collusion are void ab initio (non-est). Such orders can be set aside regardless of the tribunal's review powers: they are treated as nullities under fundamental legal principles. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR VS LAND TRIBUNAL, CHENGANNUR - 1966 0 Supreme(Ker) 187
Several other judgments reinforce this restrictive view, highlighting jurisdictional limits across various land-related tribunals:
In one case, a tribunal's review order was quashed because the concerned Revenue Officer was incompetent to undertake the review proceedings as no such power of review was specifically given. No provision in the Act conferred review powers on the government either. State of West Bengal VS Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 Supreme(SC) 144
Under the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, The Tribunal does not have any power to review its own order and reconsider its order and pass a fresh order, though the Tribunal has power to make any correction in the order, under Section 11. Akali Devi VS State of Bihar - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 2104
A critical ruling questioned whether a Land Acquisition Tribunal could entertain review post-functus officio: If the Land Acquisition Tribunal did not have the power to entertain an application for review, the order passed on the review application... is a nullity. Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) VS M. Ponnusamy - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 1686
These cases illustrate a pattern: absent explicit statutory empowerment, review is impermissible, especially after final orders.
Contrastingly, some statutes like Section 16 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, grant limited review powers, but writ petitions by non-parties were dismissed for not exhausting such remedies first. Hazi Md. Nasiruddin Akunji VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2011 Supreme(Cal) 956
In boundary disputes under Bihar laws, alternative statutory remedies must be pursued before courts intervene. Akali Devi VS State of Bihar - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 2104
Land tribunals operate within strict statutory confines. Exceeding these, such as re-opening merits without authority, invites judicial quashing. Courts in cases like RAVI KALYANI AMMA VS THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KANJIKUZHY - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 41 and State of West Bengal VS Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 Supreme(SC) 144 stress adherence to enacted powers, preventing tribunals from assuming civil court-like review jurisdiction.
Parties must check governing acts (e.g., Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Bombay Tenancy Act) for any explicit provisions.
| Aspect | Position ||--------|----------|| General Review | No inherent power; statutory only. || Merits/Ex Parte | Cannot re-examine. Kuttapan VS Chellamma - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 122 || Procedural Errors | Limited yes. Mathai VS Anna - 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 489 || Fraud | Void, challenge independently. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR VS LAND TRIBUNAL, CHENGANNUR - 1966 0 Supreme(Ker) 187 |
Land tribunals provide speedy justice but with circumscribed powers. Missteps in seeking review can lead to wasted efforts and costs. For tailored advice, engage a land law specialist.
References:1. RAVI KALYANI AMMA VS THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KANJIKUZHY - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 41: Review without notice quashed.2. Kuttapan VS Chellamma - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 122: No power over ex parte orders.3. Mathai VS Anna - 1993 0 Supreme(Ker) 489: Procedural rectification allowed.4. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR VS LAND TRIBUNAL, CHENGANNUR - 1966 0 Supreme(Ker) 187: Fraud renders orders null.5. Additional: State of West Bengal VS Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 Supreme(SC) 144, Akali Devi VS State of Bihar - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 2104, Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) VS M. Ponnusamy - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 1686, Hazi Md. Nasiruddin Akunji VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2011 Supreme(Cal) 956.
Stay informed on evolving land jurisprudence to protect your rights effectively.
#LandTribunal #ReviewPowers #LandLaw
basis of any statutory provision contained in the said Act or in the Bombay Land Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, but the Tribunal does have inherent power of procedural review. ... The tribunal does not have the inherent power of substantial review. ... (b) The Tribunal does not have the power to review its order under section 17 of the Tribunal Act read with the p....
But in this case, when the self-same had main order was confirmed by this Court, the question arises wether the Tribunal has power u/o 47,R.1 CPC or any others appropriate provision under the Tribunals Act to review the order passed by it and confirmed by this Court by refusing to grant leave. ... We find that the exercise of the review power is deleterious to the judicial discipline. Once the Court has confirmed the order passed by....
power or authority to review an earlier order. ... The Tribunal, by its judgment dated 31.03.2010, dismissed the respondent- company’s application and quashed the review order dated 07.05.2008 by holding that the concerned Revenue Officer was incompetent to undertake the review proceedings as no such power of review was specifically given. ... …It is well settled that the power to review is not an....
The Tribunal, by its judgment dated 31.03.2010, dismissed the respondent-company’s application and quashed the review order dated 07.05.2008 by holding that the concerned Revenue Officer was incompetent to undertake the review proceedings as no such power of review was specifically given. ... No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it would be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If th....
We may first address the issue of exclusion of the power of judicial review of the High Courts. We have already held that in respect of the power of judicial review, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 cannot wholly be excluded. ... the High Court under Articles 226 and 227; and, among the grounds on which the 1993 Act was saved, was that the power of judicial review of the High Court was not taken away by the creation of the Tribunal. ... While....
Notwithstanding anything contained in (Bombay Revenue Tribunal act, 1957) an application for revision may be made to the (Gujarat Revenue tribunal) constituted under the said Act against any order of the Collector (except an order under Sec. 32-P or an order in appeal against an order under sub-sec. ... , as the case may be, in respect of such land, with effect from the date on which such management has been assumed. ]"if we take into consideration the provision of th....
The tribunal has decided to exercise its power of review to vary the redevelopment period to be within 7 years, instead of 6 years provided at paragraph 175(5) of the Judgment. ... There shall be no order as to costs of the review. ... By letter dated 17 March 2025 the Applicants’ solicitors ask that if the tribunal shall make an order varying the redevelopment period to 7 years then the order for sale in the Judgment shall on....
This Court has also perused the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal and the earlier judgment of this Court in respect of the same issue. This Court does not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the point arose for consideration in this appeal is answered. ... He would further submit that in a similar matter, this Court has also dismissed the appeals filed by the Government confirming the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal ....
This Court has also perused the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal and the earlier judgment of this Court in respect of the same issue. This Court does not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the point arose for consideration in this appeal is answered. ... He would further submit that in a similar matter, this Court has also dismissed the appeals filed by the Government confirming the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal ....
This Court has also perused the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal and the earlier judgment of this Court in respect of the same issue. This Court does not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the point arose for consideration in this appeal is answered. ... He would further submit that in a similar matter, this Court has also dismissed the appeals filed by the Government confirming the order of the Land Acquisition Tribunal ....
The Tribunal does not have any power to review its own order and reconsider its order and pass a fresh order, though the Tribunal has power to make any correction in the order, under Section 11 of the Land Tribunal Act. Two aspects must exist for the Tribunal to entertain an application, namely, (i) the application is against an order passed under the Acts/Manuals referred to above and (ii) the order under challenge before the Tribunal is the final order under the Act.
But an answer to this question would depend upon the most fundamental issue as to whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal had powers to entertain an application for review. If the Land Acquisition Tribunal did not have the power to entertain an application for review, the order passed on the review application, after the Tribunal had become functus officio, is a nullity.
In that case, it has been further held that for remedy, review application to be filed before learned Tribunal below. Section 16 of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 under Clause (d) provides power of Tribunal to review its own decision.
I have also gone through the order of the Land Tribunal. Evidence was rendered by the tenant but there was no cross-examination and possibly there could be no cross-examination by a dead person and a person who has not received notice. I am satisfied that the petitioner is right in his submission with regard to no notice on the facts of this case.
I am satisfied that the petitioner is right in his submission with regard to no notice on the facts of this case. I have also gone through the order of the Land Tribunal. Evidence was rendered by the tenant but there was no cross-examination and possibly there could be no cross- examination by a dead person and a person who has not received notice.
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
