Summary
Delhi authorities sought review and recall of Supreme Court orders that had confirmed declarations of lapse of land acquisitions under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by following Pune Municipal Corporation, which the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority later overruled along with all decisions following it. The Bench divided. Shah J. allowed the reviews, recalled the orders and restored the appeals for fresh decision in the larger public interest. Nagarathna J. held the reviews not maintainable, since the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC bars review on the ground that a question of law was later reversed by a superior court and overruling affects precedential value, not finality inter partes, and granted only a one-year extension to initiate fresh acquisition. The matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India.
Issues
- Whether orders of the Supreme Court dismissing appeals on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation can be reviewed and recalled after the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority overruled that decision and all decisions following it, having regard to Article 137 of the Constitution and the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Provisions considered
- Article 137 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Constitution of IndiaThe power of review is subject to the Supreme Court Rules, which confine civil review to the grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; Shah J. treated the specific overruling of all decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation as warranting review, while Nagarathna J. held the grounds were not satisfied. (¶¶ Shah J. 3, Shah J. 6, Shah J. 8, Nagarathna J. 26, Nagarathna J. 27, Nagarathna J. 28)
- Order XLVII Rule 1 and its Explanation, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The Explanation provides that reversal or modification of a question of law by a subsequent decision of a superior court in another case is not a ground for review; Nagarathna J. read it as an exception carving out such cases from 'any other sufficient reason', so that overruled judgments remain binding between the parties. (¶¶ Nagarathna J. 2, Nagarathna J. 34, Nagarathna J. 35, Nagarathna J. 36, Nagarathna J. 37, Nagarathna J. 41, Nagarathna J. 48)
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The orders under review had declared acquisitions lapsed by applying Pune Municipal Corporation; under Indore Development Authority lapse requires that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid, and Section 24 is in the nature of a saving clause. (¶¶ Shah J. 4, Shah J. 8, Nagarathna J. 4, Nagarathna J. 8, Nagarathna J. 52)
Held
- Per Shah J.: The Constitution Bench not only overruled Pune Municipal Corporation but specifically overruled all decisions following it, and the earlier three-Judge decision in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra had observed that decisions based on Pune Municipal Corporation were open to review; meaning must be given to those observations. In most cases possession had been taken and the land used by public authorities, so in the larger public interest the delay is condoned, the orders are recalled and the appeals restored for decision afresh with all contentions, including on possession, left open. (¶¶ Shah J. 2, Shah J. 6, Shah J. 7, Shah J. 8, Shah J. 9)
- Per Nagarathna J.: Review is not an appeal in disguise; overruling of a precedent, even by a larger Bench, denudes it of precedential value but does not reopen the decree inter partes, as held in BSNL, Neelima Srivastava, Mohd. Nayyar Khalil and Shanti Devi; the Constitution Bench nowhere directed review of overruled decisions, and the earlier liberty in Shailendra did not notice the Explanation. Allowing these petitions would open a Pandora's box of hundreds of reviews across High Courts and defeat finality. The only relief is to extend by one year the time to initiate fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act, with possession already taken to remain with the acquiring body meanwhile; earlier recall orders passed without considering the Explanation call for reconsideration. (¶¶ Nagarathna J. 20, Nagarathna J. 36, Nagarathna J. 44, Nagarathna J. 47, Nagarathna J. 48, Nagarathna J. 49, Nagarathna J. 50, Nagarathna J. 51, Nagarathna J. 53, Nagarathna J. 55)
Result
Split verdict. Shah J. allowed the review and recall applications, recalled the orders in the civil appeals and restored them for fresh decision in light of Indore Development Authority, disposing of the contempt petition. Nagarathna J. held the review petitions not maintainable, declined to review the orders, and extended by one year the time to initiate fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act with possession to remain with the acquiring body meanwhile. Matter directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India; no costs.