# Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 454
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-05-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/govt-of-nct-of-delhi-through-its-secretary-land-and-building-department-another-37744
- **Pages:** 62

## Headnote

Issue arose to resolve as to which of the two views on maintainability
of the Review petitions-Hon'ble Judge presiding over the Bench
ruling in favour of maintainability of the review petitions whereas
the Hon'ble companion Judge on the Bench holding that the review
petitions were not maintainable, is the correct view; can the review
petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions,
be considered persons aggrieved; whether the last sentence of
paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case grants 'liberty' to
any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation case; if
affirmative, did such 'liberty' survive after the decision in Manoharlal
[5-Judge, lapse] case; can the RPs be held to be maintainable,
giving due regard to the Explanation in r. 1 of Ord. XLVII, CPC
vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case; if no, do the review
petitions still deserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged
therein; and if the miscellaneous applications are maintainable.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII r.1 - Application
for review of judgment - Review petitions - In Govt. of NCT of
Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, split verdict by two Hon'ble
judges - Hon'ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruled in
favour of maintainability of the review petitions whereas
the Hon'ble companion Judge on the Bench held that the
review petitions were not maintainable - In view of difference
of opinion, the review petitions referred to larger Bench to
resolve which of the two views on maintainability of the review
petitions is the correct view - Issue arose as regards if the
review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review
petitions, could be considered persons aggrieved; whether the
950
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case
grants 'liberty' to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal
Corporation case; did such 'liberty' survive after the decision in
Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case; can the review petitions be
held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation
in Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge,
lapse] case and if no, do the review petitions still deserve to
be entertained on the other grounds urged therein; and are
the miscellaneous applications maintainable:
Held: No review is available upon a change or reversal of a
proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of
this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the
judgment/order under review was based - Notwithstanding the
fact that Pune Municipal Corporation case has since been wiped
out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when
the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the
subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that
matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters
of Ord. XLVII - Opinion expressed by the Hon'ble companion Judge
on the said Division Bench is concurred with and this Court is not
in agreement with the Hon'ble presiding Judge - Judgments and
orders under review were right on the dates they were rendered,
the review petitioners are not considered as persons aggrieved who
can maintain a review petition citing either Manoharlal [5-Judge,
lapse] and Shailendra [3-Judge] - However, it is held that the
review petitioners can yet be considered persons aggrieved -
Last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case
does not grant 'liberty' to any party to seek a review of Pune
Municipal Corporation's case - Review petitions cannot be held
to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in r. 1 of
Ord. XLVII vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case - Review
petitions do not deserve to be entertained on the other grounds
urged - Miscellaneous applications not maintainable - Under
the circumstances, dismissal of the RPs and miscellaneous
applications would have been logical - However, having regard to
the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,945 of 143,415. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39945 for what follows._

[2024] 5 S.C.R. 949 : 2024 INSC 454
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary,
Land and Building Department & Another
v.
M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
(Miscellaneous Application No. 414 of 2023)
In
Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016
17 May 2024
[Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose to resolve as to which of the two views on maintainability
of the Review petitions-Hon'ble Judge presiding over the Bench
ruling in favour of maintainability of the review petitions whereas
the Hon'ble companion Judge on the Bench holding that the review
petitions were not maintainable, is the correct view; can the review
petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions,
be considered persons aggrieved; whether the last sentence of
paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case grants 'liberty' to
any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation case; if
affirmative, did such 'liberty' survive after the decision in Manoharlal
[5-Judge, lapse] case; can the RPs be held to be maintainable,
giving due regard to the Explanation in r. 1 of Ord. XLVII, CPC
vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case; if no, do the review
petitions still deserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged
therein; and if the miscellaneous applications are maintainable.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII r.1 - Application
for review of judgment - Review petitions - In Govt. of NCT of
Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, split verdict by two Hon'ble
judges - Hon'ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruled in
favour of maintainability of the review petitions whereas
the Hon'ble companion Judge on the Bench held that the
review petitions were not maintainable - In view of difference
of opinion, the review petitions referred to larger Bench to
resolve which of the two views on maintainability of the review
petitions is the correct view - Issue arose as regards if the
review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review
petitions, could be considered persons aggrieved; whether the
950
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case
grants 'liberty' to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal
Corporation case; did such 'liberty' survive after the decision in
Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case; can the review petitions be
held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation
in Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge,
lapse] case and if no, do the review petitions still deserve to
be entertained on the other grounds urged therein; and are
the miscellaneous applications maintainable:
Held: No review is available upon a change or reversal of a
proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of
this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the
judgment/order under review was based - Notwithstanding the
fact that Pune Municipal Corporation case has since been wiped
out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when
the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the
subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that
matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters
of Ord. XLVII - Opinion expressed by the Hon'ble companion Judge
on the said Division Bench is concurred with and this Court is not
in agreement with the Hon'ble presiding Judge - Judgments and
orders under review were right on the dates they were rendered,
the review petitioners are not considered as persons aggrieved who
can maintain a review petition citing either Manoharlal [5-Judge,
lapse] and Shailendra [3-Judge] - However, it is held that the
review petitioners can yet be considered persons aggrieved -
Last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case
does not grant 'liberty' to any party to seek a review of Pune
Municipal Corporation's case - Review petitions cannot be held
to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in r. 1 of
Ord. XLVII vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case - Review
petitions do not deserve to be entertained on the other grounds
urged - Miscellaneous applications not maintainable - Under
the circumstances, dismissal of the RPs and miscellaneous
applications would have been logical - However, having regard to
the disclosures made in course of progress of other proceedings
before this Court, which followed immediately after judgment on
the Review Petitions and miscellaneous applications was reserved,
taking an overall and holistic view of the matter and in the light
of the larger public interest certain directions issued - Time limit
for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
951
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
provisions contained in s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by
a year whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may
be paid in accordance with law - Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. [Paras 104, 117, 118, 119, 121]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII r.1 - Review -
Application for review of judgment - Review petitioners, on
the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions, if could be
considered persons aggrieved:
Held: In the eyes of an unsuspecting person, obviously the
review petitioners are persons aggrieved because of declaration
of land acquisition proceedings initiated by them as deemed to
have lapsed - However, the dates on which the High Court had
disposed of the writ petitions by declaring that the land acquisition
proceedings were deemed to have lapsed, the law laid down by
a binding authority-Pune Municipal Corporation' case was holding
the field at the relevant time and which the High Court applied in
reaching its conclusions - This Court too had dismissed the Civil
Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions bearing in mind that the
issue raised was no longer res integra in view of Pune Municipal
Corporation's case - Since the judgments and orders under review
were right on the dates they were rendered, the review petitioners
could not be considered as persons aggrieved who could maintain
a review petition citing either Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] and
Shailendra [3-Judge] case - However, the review petitioners can
yet be considered persons aggrieved. [Paras 107, 108]
Review - Review petitions - Liberty to apply for Review -
Last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge]
case, if grants 'liberty' to any party to seek a review of Pune
Municipal Corporation' case - Such 'liberty' if, survived after
the decision in Manoharlal [5- Judge, lapse] case - Plea of the
review petitioners that paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge]
case irrespective of anything else, did grant them 'liberty' to
apply for review, that availing such 'liberty' granted by this
Court the Review Petitions were filed, and thus, the Review
Petitions maintainable -
Held: Decision in Shailendra [3-Judge] case cannot come to the
rescue of the review petitioners - Majority in Shailendra [3-Judge]
case intended that if review petitions were pending on the date
of the decision, seeking review of decisions which had been
952
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
rendered relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation
case, such review petitions could be entertained and considered
on the basis of the discussion in Shailendra [3-Judge] case
declaring Pune Municipal Corporation's case per incuriam and
the decisions reviewed; nothing more, nothing less - Majority in
Shailendra [3-Judge] case could not have and did, in fact, give a
carte blanche to the land acquiring authorities to apply for review of
decisions already made by courts relying on the decision in Pune
Municipal Corporation case, even though the remedy of appeal or
review had not been pursued earlier and without the successful
landowners being on record before the court - Plea of review
petitioners if accepted, would result in utter chaos and confusion
in the justice delivery system apart from disturbing the principle
of finality of judicial decisions - Phrase "open to be reviewed in
appropriate cases" occurring in paragraph 217 of the decision in
Shailendra [3-Judge] case could not have been perceived by the
review petitioners as opening up an avenue for them to apply for
review - Assuming arguendo that the submission touching 'liberty'
granted by Shailendra [3-Judge] case is correct, the plinth thereof
crumbles by reason of paragraph 365 of Manoharlal [5-Judge,
lapse] case and, thus, is rendered non-existent. [Paras 78, 80, 83]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII r.1 Explanation -
Review - Application for review of judgment - Maintainability
of the review peitions, giving due regard to the Explanation
in r. 1 of Order XLVII, CPC vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge,
lapse] case:
Held: An alternative remedy, carved out by r. 1 of Ord. XLVII,
already exists which the review petitioners have pursued -
Recourse to s. 151, CPC, would not be available, the object of
which is to supplement and not replace the remedies provided
under the CPC - Attempt of the review petitioners has been to
draw inspiration from the ground "any other sufficient reason"
appearing in r. 1 - No review is available upon a change or
reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger
Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon
the judgment/order under review was based - Notwithstanding
the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation's case has since been
wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the
land when the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally
decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
953
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within
the parameters of Ord. XLVII - Plea that an aggrieved party can
seek a review "for any other sufficient reason" and overruling
of Pune Municipal Corporation's case followed by recall thereof
brings the claims of the review petitioners within the coverage of
this particular ground cannot be accepted - Thus, review petition
not maintainable. [Para 99, 100, 104-105]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII r.1 explanation -
Review - Application for review of judgment - Review
petitions not held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the
explanation in r. 1 of Ord. XLVII vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge,
lapse] case - Review petitions if could be entertained on the
other grounds urged therein:
Held: Review petitions include under the caption 'grounds'
reference to points which, according to the review petitioners,
are sufficient to review the judgments/orders under review, apart
from reference to the so-called 'liberty' granted by this Court
vide Shailendra [3-Judge] case - 'Grounds' in each of the review
petitions are factual in nature - In fact, the review petitioners
have raised 'Grounds' without even averring what was pleaded in
their counter affidavits filed before the High Court and what were
the defences raised which, because of non-consideration by this
Court, could be said to amount to an error apparent on the face
of the record - Review petitions are silent as to on which specific
ground referrable to r. 1 of Order XLVII the review has been asked
for - Even then, having considered such 'Ground', the judgments/
orders under review do not suffer from any error apparent on the
face of the record - Review petitions could not be entertained on
the other grounds urged therein. [Paras 109-111]
Miscellaneous applications - Maintainability - Miscellaneous
applications seeking recall of certain orders of this Court,
whereby some of the land acquisition proceedings were
declared to have lapsed:
Held: Miscellaneous applications not maintainable - Said
applications filed in the form of miscellaneous applications,
were in essence akin to the review petitions as they also seek
reconsideration of this Court's orders - Since these miscellaneous
applications also rely on Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case as a
ground for review/reconsideration of the previous orders, they
are squarely covered by the analysis in this judgment - If it is
954
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
held otherwise, the review petitioners would be permitting to do
something indirectly that is seeking review through miscellaneous
applications, which they could not have done directly i.e., seeking
review through review petitions - This would open the law to
being misused and lead to by-passing the legislative intent behind
introduction of Explanation 1 to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC which
cannot be permitted by the Court - This does not imply an absolute
prohibition against filing of miscellaneous applications seeking
'clarification,' 'modification,' or 'recall' following the initial disposal of
a matter - Only the Court need to exercise prudence and ascertain
whether such an application is, in substance, in the nature of a
review petition - In case such an application is found to be nothing
but a disguised version of a review petition, it ought to be treated
in similar manner a review petition is treated. [Paras 113, 116]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII r.1 explanation -
Review - Application for review of judgment - Maintainability
of the Review peitions:
Held: Ord. XLVII does not authorize a review of a decree, which
was right, on the happening of some subsequent event - In case
of discovery of a new or important matter or evidence, such matter
or evidence has to be one which existed at the time when the
decree or order under review was passed or made - Resultantly,
what the statute prohibits, cannot be permitted by the Court - If
permitted, the Court would be acting contrary to law - What
the Parliament has done, the Court cannot undo unless the law
enacted by the Parliament is declared ultra vires - Vires of the
Explanation not being under challenge during more than four
decades of its existence, it is not for the Court to ignore the
Explanation. [Paras 89, 90]
Constitution of India - Arts. 137 and 145 - Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 - Ord. XLVII r.1 - Review - Review jurisdiction -
Exercise of, by the Supreme Court:
Held: Power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgment and/
or order has its genesis in Arts. 137 and 145 of the Constitution
read with Ord. XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - r. 1 of
Ord. XLVII of the Rules lays down that no application for review
in a civil proceeding would be entertained by this Court except
on the ground mentioned in r. 1 Ord. XLVII CPC - Review in civil
proceedings is governed by s. 114 CPC read with Ord. XLVII
thereof - First and foremost condition that is required to be satisfied
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
955
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
by a party to invoke the review jurisdiction of the court, whose
order or decree, as the case may be, is sought to be reviewed,
is that the said party must be someone who is aggrieved by the
order/decree - Meaning of words "person aggrieved" has to be
ascertained with reference to the purpose and provisions of the
statute - In one sense, the said words could correspond to the
requirement of 'locus standi' in relation to judicial remedies - Need
to ascertain the 'locus standi' of a review petitioner could arise, if
he is not a party to the proceedings but claims the order or decree
to have adversely affected his interest - In terms of Ord. XLVII of
the 2013 Rules read with Ord. XLVII, CPC, a petition for review at
the instance of a third party to the proceedings too is maintainable,
the quintessence being that he must be aggrieved by a judgment/
order passed by this Court - Normally, in the context of r. 1 of Ord.
XLVII, CPC, it is that person (being a party to the proceedings)
suffering an adverse order and/or decree who, feeling aggrieved
thereby, usually seeks a review of the order/decree on any of the
grounds outlined therein - Circumstances where a review would
lie are spelt out in clauses (a) to (c) but Ord. XVLII does not end
with the circumstances - Review power u/s. 114 read with Order
XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfilment of
the conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the
following grounds: discovery of new and important matter or
evidence; or mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
or any other sufficient reason. [Paras 34, 38, 39]
Constitution of India - Art. 142 - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - ss. 114, 151, Order XLVII - Inherent powers - Review
power - Distinction:
Held: Constitutional courts have inherent powers and this Court
is also vested by Art. 142 of the Constitution with powers to pass
such decree or make such order as is necessary to do complete
justice in any cause or matter pending before it - Superior court,
in exercise of its inherent power, is authorized to do justice that
the cause before it demands - Upon satisfaction being reached
by a court that a mistake has been committed by it, which is
gross and palpable, it is not the law that the mistake has to be
corrected by exercising the power of review only - Such power can
be exercised, only if the person aggrieved by the order or decree
applies therefor - On its terms, s. 114 CPC rw Ord. XLVII thereof
does not conceive of a suo motu power of review being exercised
956
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by the court -Words "court on its own motion" are absent in the
statutory provision - However, once the court is satisfied that a
mistake committed by it needs to be rectified, it is always open to
exercise the inherent powers to achieve the desired result - An
order of court, be it judicial or administrative which is made per
incuriam or in violation of certain Constitutional limitations or in
derogation of principles of natural justice can always be remedied
by the court ex debito justitiae - It can do so in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction in any proceeding pending before it without
insisting on the formalities of a review application - To own up
the mistake when judicial satisfaction is reached does not militate
against its status or authority; perhaps, it would enhance both -
On the other hand, when it involves invocation of the power of
review and such power is traceable in a statute, which also has
provisions regulating the exercise of the review power, it has to
be held that the power of review is not an inherent power - If a
power of review is statutorily conferred, it would be inappropriate,
nay incompetent, for the court exercising review power to travel
beyond the contours of the provision conferring the very power -
Statutorily conferred power to review is not to be confused with
the inherent power of the court to recall any order - Said power
inheres in every court to prevent miscarriage of justice or when a
fraud has been committed on court or to correct grave and palpable
errors - Furthermore, inherent powers of the court u/s. 151, CPC
cannot be invoked if there exists a remedy made available by the
CPC itself. [Para 92, 94, 96]
Precedents - Decision when, per incuriam - Shailendra
[3-Judge] case, declaring Pune Municipal Corporation' case
per incuriam - Correctness:
Held: Shailendra [3-Judge] case declared Pune Municipal
Corporation [3-Judge] case per incuriam without having the benefit
of the caution sounded by the Constitution Bench in Vikramjit
Singh's case and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community's
case though it considered in excess of 250 decisions - There
is absolutely no scope for a Bench of three-Hon'ble Judges to
declare a previous decision of a Bench of co-equal strength per
incuriam - Shailendra [3-Judge] case, at the highest, could have
doubted Pune Municipal Corporation case and referred it for
decision by a yet larger Bench but could not have, by any stretch
of reasoning, declared it per incuriam. [Para 74]
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
957
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
Precedents - Decision when, per incuriam - Shailendra
[3-Judge] case, if per incuriam:
Held: There is absolutely no scope for a Bench of three-Hon'ble
Judges to declare a previous decision of a Bench of co-equal
strength per incuriam - Shailendra [3-Judge] case declared Pune
Municipal Corporation [3-Judge]'s case per incuriam without having
the benefit of the caution sounded by the Constitution Bench
in Vikramjit Singh's case and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra
Community's case - Shailendra [3-Judge] case, at the highest, could
have doubted Pune Municipal Corporation case and referred it for
decision by a yet larger Bench but could not have, by any stretch
of reasoning, declared it per incuriam - Same logic applicable to
this Bench too - Following, the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra
Community's case, and also having regard to the sense of judicial
discipline and propriety, this Court restrains itself from declaring
Shailendra [3-Judge] case as per incuriam notwithstanding the
firm conviction in this behalf - Shailendra [3-Judge] case is not
held to be per incuriam. [Para 74]
Precedent - Precedent of a previous Bench - Maintenance of
judicial discipline and propriety:
Held: Supreme Court of India, a revered institution, is one Court
which operates through separate Benches owing to administrative
exigency and practical expedience - These Benches are essential
to efficiently manage the diverse and voluminous cases that come
before the Court and to discharge the solemn judicial duty for which
the Court exists - Each Bench speaks for the Court as a whole,
contributing to the intricate symphony of justice that defines the
Supreme Court of India - Thus, the need arises for a Bench to be
careful, cautious, and circumspect while being critical of a precedent
of a previous Bench - Every Bench is supposed to bear in mind
two overriding considerations - First is that of deference to the
views expressed by a Bench in a primary decision and the other
is maintaining judicial discipline and propriety if, upon threadbare
consideration, it is found difficult to assent to the justification for
such primary decision - In such an eventuality, dignity and decency
would demand disagreement voiced by the subsequent Bench
and reference of the matter to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
constitution of a larger Bench which is not a critical observations
and adverse comments in respect of the primary decision rendered
by a coordinate Bench. [Paras 69, 70]
958
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judicial Discipline - Maintenance of:
Held: If a judgment and/or order has attained finality because a
judicial remedy is either not available in law or even if available,
such remedy has been lost, it is not open for a higher court of
law by a judicial fiat either to create a remedy for the party on
the losing side to pursue or to grant liberty to him to pursue an
otherwise available remedy which by passage of time might have
been lost-behind the back of a party who would obviously be seriously affected if he were compelled to contest the proceedings
once again - Such an act of court would be without the authority
of law. [Para 81]
Case Law Cited
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra
[2004] Supp. 6 SCR 1054 : (2005) 2 SCC 673 - followed.
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club [2005] 1
SCR 173 : (2005) 4 SCC 741; Jagmohan Singh v. State of Punjab
[2008] 7 SCR 117 : (2008) 7 SCC 38 - distinguished.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Ors.
[2023] 6 SCR 209 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 288; Pune Municipal
Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014] 1 SCR 783 :
(2014) 3 SCC 183; Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
(2018) 1 SCC 733; Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
[2018] 2 SCR 1 : (2018) 3 SCC 412; State of Haryana v. GD
Goenka Tourism Corporation Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 585; Indore
Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2020) 15 SCC 342; State
of Haryana v. Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust (Regd.) (2018)
SCC Online SC 3600; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
[2020] 3 SCR 1 : (2020) 8 SCC 129; Indore Development Authority
v. Manoharlal [2019] 15 SCR 1085 : (2020) 6 SCC 304; Pune
Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014] 1
SCR 783 : (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1471; Chajju Ram v. Neki AIR
(1922) PC 112; Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik [2006] 3 SCR
87 : (2006) 4 SCC 78; BSNL v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1;
Neelima Srivastava v. State of UP [2021] 8 SCR 167 : (2021) SCC
Online SC 610; Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad
[2018] 14 SCR 239 : (2019) 18 SCC 586; Moran Mar Basselios
Catholics v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [1955] 1 SCR
520 : AIR (1954) SC 526; Syed Liaqat Husain v. Mohd. Razi,
AIR (1944) Oudh 198; Lachhmi Narain Balu v. Ghisa Bihari, AIR
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
959
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
(1960) Punjab 43; Patel Naranbhai Jinabhai v. Patel Gopaldas
Venidas, AIR (1972) Gujarat 229; Thadikulangara Pylee's Son
Pathrose v. Ayyazhiveettil Lakshmi Amma's son Kuttan, AIR
(1969) Kerala 186; Sudananda Moral v. Rakhal Sana XXXI CWN
822 : AIR (1927) Cal 920; Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma
Rao v. Raja Vellanki Venkatrama Rao, 7 LR (1899-1900) 27 IA
197; Ravella Krishnamurthy v. Yarlagadda, AIR (1933) Madras
485; Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana (1999) 5 SCC 703; Union
of India v. Mohd Nayyar Khalil (2000) 9 SCC 252; Nand Kishore
Ahirwar v. Haridas Parsedia (2001) 9 SCC 325; State of West
Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta [2008] 10 SCR 4 : (2008) 8 SCC
612; Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [2014] 1 SCR
308 : (2014) 5 SCC 75; Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy
[2021] 1 SCR 681 : (2021) 3 SCC 1; A.C. Estates v. Serajuddin
[1966] 1 SCR 235; Raja Shatrunji v. Mohd. Azmat Azim Khan
[1971] Supp. 1 SCR 433 : (1971) 2 SCC 200; Kamlesh Verma v.
Mayawati [2013] 11 SCR 25 : (2013) 8 SCC 320; S. Madhusudhan
Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [2022] 11 SCR 42 : (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 1034; Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(1992) Supp. 3 SCC 62; Shri Ram Sahu and Others v. Vinod
Kumar Rawat [2020] 11 SCR 865 : (2021) 13 SCC 1; Indian
Bank v. Satyam Fibres [1996] Supp. 4 SCR 464 : (1996) 5 SCC
550; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [1988] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (1988) 2
SCC 602; Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji
(1971) 3 SCC 844; Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1961]
1 SCR 884 : (1961) 1 SCR 884; My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh & Others (2022) SCC OnLine
SC 1063; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others
[2000] Supp. 2 SCR 496 : (2000) 7 SCC 296; Supertech Ltd. v.
Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others
[2021] 10 SCR 569 : (2023) 10 SCC 817 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Supreme
Court Rules, 2013; Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013; Code of Civil Procedure, 1877; Code
of Civil Procedure, 1882; Limitation Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Review petitions; Persons aggrieved; Shailendra [3-Judge] case;
Pune Municipal Corporation' case; Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse]
960
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
case; Maintainability of the Review petitions; Change or reversal
of a proposition of law by a superior court; Larger Bench of this
Court overruling its earlier exposition of law; Public interest; Review
jurisdiction; Review in civil proceedings; Locus standi; Judicial
remedies; Liberty to apply for Review; Per incuriam; Principle
of finality of judicial decisions; Discovery of a new or important
matter or evidence; Inherent powers; Review power; Court on
its own motion; Derogation of principles of natural justice; Ex
debito justitiae; Alternative remedy; Subsequent overruling of
decision; Miscellaneous applications; Recall of certain orders; Land
acquisition; Compensation; Rightful claimant; Judicial discipline;
Judicial propriety; Administrative exigency; Judicial duty; Precedent
of a previous Bench.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application No.
414 of 2023
In
Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2016 of the Supreme
Court of India in C.A. No.11857 of 2016
With
MA No.808 of 2023 In C.A. No.12239 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.882 of 2017
In C.A. No. 11846 of 2016, MA No.159 of 2018 In C.A. No.11857 of
2016, R.P.(C) No.396 of 2023 In C.A. No. 11857 of 2016, R.P.(C)
No.409 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8511 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.410 of 2023
In C.A. No. 8925 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.412 of 2023 In C.A. No. 12114
Of 2016, R.P.(C) No.414 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8898 of 2016, R.P.(C)
No.416 of 2023 In C.A. No. 4599 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.419 of 2023
In C.A. No. 10206 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.418 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8505
of 2016, R.P.(C) No.425 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8929 of 2016, R.P.(C)
No.428 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8545 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.1731 of 2023
In C.A. No. 9598 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.429 of 2023 In C.A. No. 11256
of 2016, R.P.(C) No.431 of 2023 In C.A. No. 9597 of 2016, R.P.(C)
No.432 of 2023 In C.A. No. 11841 of 2016, Conmt.Pet.(C) No.735 of
2018 In C.A. No. 11857 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.398 of 2023 In C.A. No.
8529 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.399 of 2023 In C.A. No. 11857 of 2016,
R.P.(C) No.400 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8899 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.401
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
961
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
of 2023 In C.A. No. 8527 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.402 of 2023 In C.A.
No. 8547 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.403 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8952 of 2016,
R.P.(C) No.405 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8935 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.406
of 2023 In C.A. No. 8954 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.407 of 2023 In C.A.
No. 9049 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.408 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8559 of 2016,
R.P.(C) No.411 of 2023 In C.A. No. 9214 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.413
of 2023 In C.A. No. 9595 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.397 of 2023 In C.A.
No. 8909 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.417 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8921 of 2016,
R.P.(C) No.420 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8904 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.421
of 2023 In C.A. No. 9719 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.423 of 2023 In C.A.
No. 8957 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.424 of 2023 In C.A. No. 8922 of 2016,
R.P.(C) No.426 of 2023 In SlP(C) No. 17316 of 2016, R.P.(C) No.430
of 2023 In C.A. No. 11854 of 2016, C.A. No.1522 of 2023 DiAry No.
14831 of 2023, DiAry No. 15893 of 2023, R.P.(C) No. 422 of 2023 In
C.A. No. 12046 of 2016, R.P.(C) No. 404 of 2023 In C.A. No. 12111
of 2016, And R.P.(C) No. 415 of 2023 In C.A. No. 11853 of 2016
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, K M Nataraj, A.S.Gs., Sanjay Poddar, Sanjiv
Sen, Kailash Vasdev, Sanijiv Sen, Shyam Divan, V.Giri, Kailash
Vasudev, Neeraj Kr Jain, Vivek Chib, Sr. Advs., Ms. Qurratulain,
Govind Kumar, Pratish Goel, Anil Kumar Goyal, Ms. Niharika
Ahluwalia, Arpit Sharma, M/s. Saharya & Co., Nitin Mishra, Ishaan
Sharma, Ms. Mitali Gupta, Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Ms. Binu Tamta,
Ravi Bharuka, Ashwani Kumar, Arpit Singh, Ms. Anjali Singh, Ms.
Radha Gupta, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms. Purnima Singh, Rustam
Singh Chauhan, Ms. BLN Shivani, Ashwin Joesph, Ms. Arti Singh,
Ms. Shalini Chandra, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay
Garg, Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Ishaan Tiwari, Chanakya Gupta, R.
P. Bansal, Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Ms. Manika
Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms.
Archana Kumari, Rahul Pandey, N Balraj, Ms. Shambhavi Sharma,
Ms. Prachi Bajpai, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Ms.
Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Tejasvi Gupta, Pawan Upadhyay,
Ms. Suveni Bhagat, B.V.Niren, Rakesh Kumar, M/s. Vedya Partners,
Bharat Arora, Alok Gupta, T. N. Singh, Vikas Kumar Singh, Ms.
Rajshree Singh, Dr. Sham Chand, D.K. Garg, Ms. Ishita Bist, Ankur
Bansal, Davesh Bhatia, Sadre Alam, Vivek Sharma, Ms. Diksha Rai,
Ms. Ragini Pandey, Arijit Dey, Anirudh Bakru, Ms. Akriti Chaubey,
Ayush Puri, Ms. Anshula Laroiya, R Jawaharlal, Siddharth Bawa, Anuj
962
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Garg, Mayank Kshirsagar, Ms. Smita Maan, Rajiv Ghawana, T. V. S.
Raghavendra Sreyas, Siddharth Vasudev, Neelaksh Sharma, Vikalp
Chandela, Divyanshu Goyal, Mayank Kapoor, Ms. Divya Sharma, Ms.
Jasmine Damkewala, Akhil Sachar, Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Sudeep
Singh, Amit Malik, Bhavya Sethi, Akul Mahendru, Prakash Kumar,
Sameer Malik, Ms. Neelam Singh, Rajiv Raheja, Ravi Ranjan, Abhinav
Shrivastava, Sharath Nambiar, B K Satija, Kanu Agarwal, Raman
Yadav, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Nishit Agrawal, Ajay
Marwah, Shivam Goel, Govind Kumar, Ms. Ramya S Goel, Akash
Katiyar, Rahatdeep Sharma, Praveen Swarup, Ajay Vikram Singh,
Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Pankaj Kumar, Omkar, Shubham Singh, Puneet
Singh Bindra, Akshay Sharma, Simran Jeet, Rishabh Gupta, Sameer
Sethi, Manish Paliwal, N.S. Vasisht, Jyoti Kataria Bajaj, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
A. PREFACE.......................................................................... 4
B. THE REFERENCE ............................................................ 5
C. JUDICIAL TRAJECTORY .................................................. 6
D. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE REVIEW PETITIONS...... 13
E. THE SPLIT VERDICT........................................................ 15
F. SUBMISSIONS.................................................................. 19
G. QUESTIONS BEFORE US............................................... 25
H. LAW ON REVIEW JURISDICTION................................... 26
I.
PRECEDENTS CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION..... 36
J. OTHER PRECEDENTS ON REVIEW............................... 41
K. ANALYSIS.......................................................................... 45
L. CONCLUSION..................................................................... 79
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
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
963
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
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
964
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
emerged in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited
and ors.,1 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 that
preceded the split verdict.
4.
The 2013 Act was enforced with effect from 1st January, 2014. Soon
thereafter, the interpretation of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act fell for
consideration before this Court. A three-Judge Bench (cor. Hon'ble
R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Kurian Joseph,
JJ.) in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki 2 explained, in the light of section 31 of the 2013 Act what
the expression "compensation has not been paid" occurring in section
24(2) meant. The verb "paid" in the same sub-section was also
explained. Perhaps, since no argument was advanced, the Bench
did not have the occasion to consider whether the conjunction "or"
between the expressions "compensation has not been paid" and
"possession has not been taken" in sub-section (2) should be read
as "or" as it is, or read as "and".
5.
However, Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was doubted by a
two-Judge Bench (cor. Hon'ble Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Amitava Roy,
JJ.) in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [2-Judge] 3
wherein it was of the opinion that the issue should be considered
by a larger Bench.
1
[2023] 6 SCR 209 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 288
2
(2014) 3 SCC 183
3
(2018) 1 SCC 733
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
965
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others
6.
Consequently, a Bench of three-Judges (cor. Hon'ble Arun Mishra,
Hon'ble A.K. Goel and Hon'ble M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.) was
constituted. The majority speaking through Hon'ble Arun Mishra, J.
in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [3-Judge] 4 held
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) per incuriam but deemed it
not necessary to refer to a larger Bench. Relevant excerpts from
such decision are set out hereunder:
216. With respect to the decision of this Court in Pune
Municipal Corpn.