Summary
The reference was answered against review of concluded acquisition cases solely because the governing precedent was later overruled or recalled. The Court nevertheless issued exceptional Article 142 fresh-acquisition directions for specified matters, remanded five title/claimant disputes and separated eight matters for hearing. The lead MA 414/2023 itself was among those detached for want of notice, so the general fresh-acquisition directions did not dispose of it on merits.
Issues
- Whether subsequent overruling or recall supplied a permissible ground of civil review.
- Whether Shailendra granted a fresh liberty to reopen concluded judgments.
- Whether other pleaded grounds or miscellaneous recall applications could overcome the review limits.
- How exceptional acquisition relief and excluded/remanded groups were to be handled.
Provisions considered
- Articles 137 and 145; Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XLVII Rule 1, Constitution of IndiaCivil review is subject to the grounds incorporated from Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; it is not an unrestricted reconsideration power. (¶¶ 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 104)
- Section 114; Order XLVII Rule 1 and Explanation, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Subsequent reversal or modification of the legal proposition on which a concluded decision rests is not a ground of review. Other sufficient reason must be analogous to the specified review grounds. (¶¶ 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 89, 90, 100, 101, 102, 104, 109, 110)
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Inherent recall and statutory review are distinct. Inherent power cannot bypass express statutory restrictions or substitute for the available review remedy. (¶¶ 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99)
- Articles 141 and 142, Constitution of IndiaJudicial discipline restricts coordinate benches from overturning one another. Separately, exceptional Article 142 directions addressed fresh acquisition for the identified groups in the larger public interest. (¶¶ 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 83, 102, 121)
- Sections 24(2), 11, 15, 21, 25, 28–30; Chapters II, III, V and VIII, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The case-specific fresh-acquisition regime modified preliminary procedure and timelines, dispensed with specified requirements and retained directed monetary benefits and compensation-enhancement references. (¶¶ 121, 124, 125)
Held
- A later superior-court or larger-bench decision changing the law does not supply review grounds for a judgment correct under the binding law when delivered. Even subsequent recall of Pune Municipal Corporation did not alter the Order XLVII bar. The reference accordingly accepted the earlier dissenting view on maintainability. (¶¶ 44, 89, 90, 103, 104, 105, 118, 119, 120)
- Shailendra’s words about review in appropriate cases were no carte blanche to revive concluded disputes or lost remedies behind successful parties’ backs. At most the Court understood them as addressing reviews already pending; their asserted foundation also fell with Manoharlal’s treatment of Shailendra. A review could not be filed in anticipation of a future favourable judgment. Coordinate-bench disagreement called for proper reference and judicial discipline. (¶¶ 68, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85)
- Review requires an aggrieved person and a specified permissible ground. Newly discovered evidence must have existed at the relevant time and satisfy due diligence and materiality; apparent error must be self-evident. Other sufficient reason is construed analogously. The expansive statements in Netaji Cricket Club and Jagmohan Singh were confined to their special facts, rather than applied as a general licence to consider later developments. (¶¶ 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 100, 101, 102)
- The authorities were not aggrieved for a change-of-law review merely because the earlier decisions followed then-binding law. They could be regarded as aggrieved on independently asserted grounds, but examination of those factual grounds disclosed no error apparent and no basis for review. Inherent recall could not be used to circumvent the available statutory review process. (¶¶ 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111)
- The miscellaneous applications here were disguised reviews relying on later precedent and were likewise not maintainable. This did not establish an absolute bar to every genuine clarification, modification or recall application after disposal; courts must examine substance. (¶¶ 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117)
- Despite the review-law answers, Article 142 provided the covered matters a one-year fresh-acquisition window from 1 August 2024, with status quo on possession, land use and third-party rights. Old notifications were deemed Section 11 notifications published on 1 January 2014; specified social-impact, preliminary and rehabilitation requirements were dispensed with. Owners had four weeks for limited objections, followed by public notice within two weeks; awards were due within six months, using 1 January 2014 market value and directed monetary benefits, attached-asset value and solatium. Chapter VIII enhancement references remained available. (¶ 121)
- Five specified subsequent-purchaser/title disputes were remanded after setting aside the High Court orders and restoring writ petitions for the limited compensation-claimant inquiry. A dedicated bench could receive affidavit documents and independent reports. Determined compensation must be deposited with the reference court, invested in renewable short-term nationalised-bank deposits, and released with accrued interest upon the High Court’s determination. (¶¶ 122, 123, 124)
- Paragraph 121 directions expressly excluded eight detached matters, listed for the week commencing 22 July 2024: two lacking notice (including lead MA 414/2023), three separate appellate matters, two pre-change-of-law review/recall matters and a contempt petition. These required separate consideration; the lead application was not finally adjudicated by the general regime. (¶ 125)
- All other reviews and miscellaneous applications were disposed of on the stated terms without costs. (¶ 126)
Result
Reference answered against change-of-law review. Covered matters disposed of with Article 142 fresh-acquisition directions; five claimant disputes remanded. Eight matters, including lead MA 414/2023, detached for separate listing in the week of 22 July 2024. No costs in the disposed matters.