# GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHER v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2023] 6 S.C.R. 209
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-03-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, B. V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/govt-of-nct-of-delhi-through-the-secretary-land-and-building-department-another-37169
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

Constitution of India : Art. 137 - Review of judgment or orders
by the Supreme Court - Review of the judgments/orders passed by
this Court, on basis of the judgment overruled by a subsequent
judgment - Maintainability of - On facts, land acquisition matters
- Based on *Pune Municipal Corporation's case on the interpretation
of s. 24(2) of 2013 Act, several decision passed by this Court -
However, the Pune Municipal Corporation's case subsequently
overruled by the Constitution Bench in **Indore Development
Authority's case - Constitution Bench specifically observed and held
that not only the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation's
case is overruled, but all other decisions in which Pune Municipal
Corporation's case has been followed are also overruled - Filing of
review petitions, to review and recall the judgments/orders impugned
in the review petitions and to restore the Civil Appeals or Special
Leave Petitions, for consideration on merits - Held: In view of
difference of opinion, matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 47 r. 1 - Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s. 24(2) - Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 - Or. 47 r. 1.
In the Order of M. R. SHAH, J.
**Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal &
Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
*Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through
Lrs. & Others (2018) 3 SCC 412 : [2018] 2 SCR 1;
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 209
209
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Others v. Dossibai
N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1970) 1 SCC 613 : [1970] 3 SCR
830; Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v.
Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 14
SCC 171 : [2008] 13 SCR 421; Board of Control for
Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC
741 : [2005] 1 SCR 173; Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353 : [2014]
7 SCR 799; BSNL v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1 :
[2006] 2 SCR 823; Neelima Srivastava v. State of U.P.
2021 SCC OnLine SC 610; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
(2013) 8 SCC 320 : [2013] 11 SCR 25; Beghar
Foundation v. K. S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1; Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC 733
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 4
[2018] 2 SCR 1
referred to
Para 4.1
[1970] 3 SCR 830
referred to
Para 4.5
[2008] 13 SCR 421
referred to
Para 4.6
[2005] 1 SCR 173
referred to
Para 4.7
[2014] 7 SCR 799
referred to
Para 5.5
[2006] 2 SCR 823
referred to
Para 5.5
[2013] 11 SCR 25
referred to
Para 5.6
(2021) 3 SCC 1
referred to
Para 5.7
(2018) 1 SCC 733
referred to
Para 6
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 9
In the Judgment of B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8
SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Indore
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
211
Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC
733; Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018)
3 SCC 412 : [2018] 2 SCR 1; Indore Development
Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) SCC Online SC 3324;
Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and Others v. Dossibai
N. B. Jeejeebhoy AIR 1971 SC 2355 : [1970] 3 SCR
830; Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v.
Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 14
SCC 171 : [2008] 13 SCR 421; Dr. Subramaniam Swamy
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 75 :
[2014] 1 SCR 308; Rajender Kumar v. Rambhai (2007)
15 SCC 513; Beghar Foundation through its Secretary
v. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Ors. (2021) 3
SCC 1; K. S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1
SCC 1 : [2018] 8 SCR 1; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
and Another v. Union of India and Others (2006) 3
SCC 1 : [2006] 2 SCR 823; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 : [2013

## Text

_Characters 0–39,094 of 114,362. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39094 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE 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)
MARCH 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India : Art. 137 - Review of judgment or orders
by the Supreme Court - Review of the judgments/orders passed by
this Court, on basis of the judgment overruled by a subsequent
judgment - Maintainability of - On facts, land acquisition matters
- Based on *Pune Municipal Corporation's case on the interpretation
of s. 24(2) of 2013 Act, several decision passed by this Court -
However, the Pune Municipal Corporation's case subsequently
overruled by the Constitution Bench in **Indore Development
Authority's case - Constitution Bench specifically observed and held
that not only the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation's
case is overruled, but all other decisions in which Pune Municipal
Corporation's case has been followed are also overruled - Filing of
review petitions, to review and recall the judgments/orders impugned
in the review petitions and to restore the Civil Appeals or Special
Leave Petitions, for consideration on merits - Held: In view of
difference of opinion, matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 47 r. 1 - Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s. 24(2) - Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 - Or. 47 r. 1.
In the Order of M. R. SHAH, J.
**Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal &
Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
*Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through
Lrs. & Others (2018) 3 SCC 412 : [2018] 2 SCR 1;
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 209
209
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Others v. Dossibai
N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1970) 1 SCC 613 : [1970] 3 SCR
830; Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v.
Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 14
SCC 171 : [2008] 13 SCR 421; Board of Control for
Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC
741 : [2005] 1 SCR 173; Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353 : [2014]
7 SCR 799; BSNL v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1 :
[2006] 2 SCR 823; Neelima Srivastava v. State of U.P.
2021 SCC OnLine SC 610; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
(2013) 8 SCC 320 : [2013] 11 SCR 25; Beghar
Foundation v. K. S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1; Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC 733
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 4
[2018] 2 SCR 1
referred to
Para 4.1
[1970] 3 SCR 830
referred to
Para 4.5
[2008] 13 SCR 421
referred to
Para 4.6
[2005] 1 SCR 173
referred to
Para 4.7
[2014] 7 SCR 799
referred to
Para 5.5
[2006] 2 SCR 823
referred to
Para 5.5
[2013] 11 SCR 25
referred to
Para 5.6
(2021) 3 SCC 1
referred to
Para 5.7
(2018) 1 SCC 733
referred to
Para 6
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 9
In the Judgment of B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8
SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Indore
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
211
Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC
733; Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018)
3 SCC 412 : [2018] 2 SCR 1; Indore Development
Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) SCC Online SC 3324;
Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and Others v. Dossibai
N. B. Jeejeebhoy AIR 1971 SC 2355 : [1970] 3 SCR
830; Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v.
Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 14
SCC 171 : [2008] 13 SCR 421; Dr. Subramaniam Swamy
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 75 :
[2014] 1 SCR 308; Rajender Kumar v. Rambhai (2007)
15 SCC 513; Beghar Foundation through its Secretary
v. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Ors. (2021) 3
SCC 1; K. S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1
SCC 1 : [2018] 8 SCR 1; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
and Another v. Union of India and Others (2006) 3
SCC 1 : [2006] 2 SCR 823; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 : [2013] 11 SCR 25;
The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. The State of Bihar
AIR 1955 SC 661 : [1955] SCR 603; Bisheshwar
Pratap Sahi v. Parath Nath AIR 1934 P.C. 213; Hari
Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter AIR 1949 FC 106;
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar
Paulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 : [1955] SCR
520; Y. P. Chawla and Others v. M. P. Tiwari and
Another AIR 1992 SC 1360 : [1992] 2 SCR 440;
Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla (2005) 5 SCC 390; Lily Thomas
v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 : [2000] 3 SCR
1081; Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC
78 : [2006] 3 SCR 87; Thungabhadra Industries Ltd.
v. Government of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372 : [1964] 5
SCR 174; Union of India v. Mohd. Nayyar Khalil (2000)
9 SCC 252; Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana (RP Dy.
No. 1249 of 1999) (1999) 5 SCC 703; Usha Bharti v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 7 SCC 663 : [2014] 4
SCR 1076; State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Justice R. A. Mehta
(Retd.) (2013) 3 SCC 1 : [2013] 1 SCR 1; Madan
Mohan Pathak & Anr. v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC
803 : (1978) 2 SCC 50 : [1978] 3 SCR 334; Neelima
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) SCC online
610; Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953; Union of India v.
Major S. P. Sharma (2014) 6 SCC 351 : [2014] 4 SCR
327; Special Courts Bill, 1978, In RE (1979) 1 SCC
380 : [1979] 2 SCR 476; State of West Bengal v. Kamal
Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 : [2008] 10 SCR 4; Hari
Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter 1949 FCR 36; Parison
Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 : [1997] 4 Suppl.
SCR 470; Nalagarh Dehati Coop. Transport Society
Ltd. v. Beli Ram AIR 1981 HP 1; Gyan Chandra
Dwivedi v. 2nd ADJ, Kanpur AIR 1987 All 40;
S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (2022)
SCC OnLine SC 1034; Chajju Ram v. Neki AIR 1922
P.C 112; Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron
Ores Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 : [2013] 2 SCR
1045; State of Haryana v. G. D. Goenka Tourism
Corporation Corporation Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 585 -
referred to.
G. P. Singh's "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" -
15th Edition.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 5
(2018) 1 SCC 733
referred to
Para 6
[2018] 2 SCR 1
referred to
Para 6
[1970] 3 SCR 830
referred to
Para 14
[2008] 13 SCR 421
referred to
Para 14
[2014] 1 SCR 308
referred to
Para 17 (i)
(2007) 15 SCC 513
referred to
Para 17 (i)
(2021) 3 SCC 1
referred to
Para 17 (ii)
[2018] 8 SCR 1
referred to
Para 17 (ii)
[2006] 2 SCR 823
referred to
Para 17 (iii)
[2013] 11 SCR 25
referred to
Para 17 (iv)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
213
[1955] SCR 603
referred to
Para 18
AIR 1922 P.C. 112
referred to
Para 34 (i)
AIR 1934 P.C. 213
referred to
Para 34 (i)
AIR 1949 FC 106
referred to
Para 34 (ii)
[1955] SCR 520
referred to
Para 34 (iii)
[1992] 2 SCR 440
referred to
Para 38
[2006] 2 SCR 823
referred to
Para 42
(2005) 5 SCC 390
referred to
Para 43 (c)
[2000] 3 SCR 1081
referred to
Para 43 (e)
[2006] 3 SCR 87
referred to
Para 45 (a)
[1964] 5 SCR 174
referred to
Para 45 (b)
(2000) 9 SCC 252
referred to
Para 45 (c)
(1999) 5 SCC 703
referred to
Para 45 (d)
[2014] 4 SCR 1076
referred to
Para 45 (e)
[2013] 1 SCR 1
referred to
Para 46 (a)
[1978] 3 SCR 334
referred to
Para 46 (b)
[2006] 3 SCR 953
referred to
Para 46 (c)
[2014] 4 SCR 327
referred to
Para 46 (d)
[1979] 2 SCR 476
referred to
Para 46 (f)
[2008] 10 SCR 4
referred to
Para 46 (g)
[1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 470
referred to
Para 46 (g) (ii)
AIR 1981 HP 1
referred to
Para 46 (g) (iii)
AIR 1987 All 40
referred to
Para 46 (g) (iv)
AIR 1922 PC 112
referred to
Para 46 (h)
[2013] 2 SCR 1045
referred to
Para 46 (h) (i)
(2018) 3 SCC 585
referred to
Para 47
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 51
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
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 in C.A. No.11857
of 2016 of the Supreme Court of India.
With
Review Petition No. 396 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11857 of
2016, Review Petition No. 397 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8909 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 398 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8529 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 399 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 400 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8899 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 401 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8527 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 402 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8547 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 403 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8952 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 404 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 12111 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 405 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8935 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 406 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8954 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 407 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9049 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 408 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8559 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 409 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8511 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 410 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8925 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 411 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9214 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 412 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 12114 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 413 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9595 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 414 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8898 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 415 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11853 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 416 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 4599 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 417 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8921 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 418 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8505 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 419 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 10206 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 420 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8904 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 421 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9719 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 422 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 12046 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 423 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8957 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 424 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8922 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 425 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8929 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 426 of 2023 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
17316 of 2016, Review Petition No. 427 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.
8545 of 2016, Review Petition No. 428 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9598
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
of 2016, Review Petition No. 429 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11256 of
2016, Review Petition No. 430 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11854 of
2016, Review Petition No. 431 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9597 of 2016,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 735 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11857 of
2016, Miscellaneous Application No. 159 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.
11857 of 2016, Review Petition No. 432 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.
11841 of 2016 and Review Petition (Civil) No. 882 of 2017 in Civil Appeal
No. 11846 of 2016.
Tushar Mehta, SG, K.M. Nataraj, ASG, B.K. Satija, Dinesh
Chander Yadav, AAGs, Sanjay Poddar, V. Giri, Shyam Divan, Neeraj
Kr. Jain, Vivek Chib, Sr. Advs., Praveen Swarup, Shivam Goel, Anil
Kumar Goyal, Govind Kumar, Pratesh Goel, Ramaya S. Goel, Ajay
Vikram Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Shekhar Shrotiya, Ms. Qurratulain,
Anil Kr. Goyal, Govind Kumar, Pratish Goel, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh
B. Saharya, Akshat Agarwala, M/s. Saharya & Co., Nitin Mishra, A.S.
Rishi, Ishwar Chand, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Suresh Kumar Bhan, Ms.
Asmita Dwivedi, Ms. Swati Yadav, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Ms. Binu Tamta,
Ravi Bharuka, Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms. Arti Singh,
Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Ms. Pooja Singh, Basant Pal Singh,
Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Ms. Sneha Botwe, Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey,
Manish Vashist, Ashutosh Kaushik, Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, T. V. S.
Raghavendra Sreyas, Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Neelaksh Sharma,
Ms. Akshita, Siddharth Vasudev, Dinesh K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg,
Abhishek Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, Ajit Gaikwar, Amit Malik, Sudeep Singh,
Ms. Neelam Singh, Davesh Bhatia, Dr. M. K. Ravi, Ankur Bansal, Rajiv
Raheja, Deepak Vuttsya, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Anirudh Bakru, Ayush
Puri, Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Anubhav Ray, T. N. Singh, Vikas K. Singh,
Sham Chand, Vikram Singh, Rajshree Singh, Umang Tripathi, Ms. Smita
Maan, Ms. Nina R Nariman, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ankit Agarwal, Vivek
Sharma, Ms. Coral Shah, Ms. Unnati Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Kristideepa
Choudhury, Ms. Ragini Pandey, R. Jawahar Lal, Siddharth Bawa,
Mayank Kshirsagar, N.S. Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Ajay Marwah,
Divyanshu Goyal, Ms. Srishti Bhalla, Mayank Kapoor, Alok Gupta, Atul
Kumar, Amitabh Ranjan, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rajiv Ranjan, Rahul
Pandey, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Anu Sula, Himesh Thakur, Ms. Tanya
Mittal, Abhinav Shrivastava, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Kanu Agrawal,
Sharath Nambiar, B.K. Satija, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Nakul Chengappa,
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Neha Tripathi, Ashwani
Kumar, Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ravinder Nain, Puneet
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Sharma, Nishit Agarwal, Ms. Kaniska Mittal, Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish
Garg, T.L. Garg, Ms. Bhavana Moolchandni, Hitesh Kr. Sharma, S.K.
Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Rakesh Kumar, Akhil Sachar,
Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following decisions of the Court were passed:
ORDER
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of
applications/petitions, all these applications/petitions are decided and
disposed of together by this common order.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay caused in filing the
respective review/recall applications is hereby condoned.
3. All these applications under Article 137 of the Constitution of
India r/w Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) have been
preferred by the Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development
Authority to review and recall the orders passed in the respective Civil
Appeals in dismissing/disposing off the same and to restore the same to
their original files to consider the same on merits.
4. Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the Government of NCT of Delhi and other learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority have vehemently submitted
that while dismissing/disposing off all the respective Civil Appeals and
holding and/or confirming the judgments of the respective High Courts
declaring that the acquisition of the lands in question have lapsed in view
of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as the '2013 Act'), reliance was placed on the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183. It is the case on behalf of the
applicants that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra), which was relied upon while dismissing/disposing
off all the respective appeals has been specifically overruled by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Manohar Lal & others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. It is submitted
on behalf of the respective applicants that by specifically overruling the
decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the
Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically observed and held that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
217
not only the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)
is overruled, but all other decisions in which Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) has been followed are also overruled. Heavy
reliance is placed upon para 365 of the Constitution Bench of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra).
4.1 It is further submitted on behalf of the applicants that this
Court in the earlier decision in the case of Indore Development Authority
v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 412,
while holding that the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and other decisions following the view taken in
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are per incuriam, it was observed
that the decisions rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra) are open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of the
said decision. It is submitted that pursuant to the liberty reserved in the
said decision, the present applications/petitions have been preferred.
4.2 It is further submitted that power to review flows from Article
137 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that once the law has
been laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Others (supra)
and specifically overruling the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) which was the basis to dispose of/dismiss the
respective appeals, the principle of res judicata shall not be applicable
on the question of law.
4.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
applicants have also submitted that as such the judgment and order passed
by this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
been subsequently recalled by a three Judge Bench of this Court vide
order dated 16.07.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 877/2014. It is
submitted that in that view of the matter also, the orders passed in the
respective civil appeals dismissing/disposing off the same relying upon
the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are
also required to be reviewed/recalled.
4.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
applicants have also relied upon some of the subsequent orders passed
by this Court recalling similar orders dismissing/disposing off the civil
appeals in which the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) was relied upon and the respective proceedings
are ordered to be restored to their original file in which the effect of the
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
subsequent judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra) Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra) is under consideration. Reliance is placed on the order passed
by this Court dated 15.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.
21678/2020.
4.5 Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the applicants has relied upon the decision of this Court in the
case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Others v. Dossibai N.B.
Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613 in support of his submissions that as
held by this Court that the decision on question of law where the law is
altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as
res judicata.
4.6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Assistant
Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock
Exchange Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 171, it is submitted that as observed
and held by this Court a judicial decision acts retrospectively. It is
submitted that it is further observed that if a subsequent decision alters
the earlier one, the later decision does not make new law. It only discovers
the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. It is
submitted that it is further observed that to put it differently, even where
an earlier decision of the court operated for quite some time, the decision
rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal
position which was earlier not correctly understood.
4.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the respective applicants that in the present case, in many cases, the
possession of the lands in question has been handed over to the DDA/
applicants which are to be used for the public purpose. It is contended
that because of the wrong interpretation of law in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra), the acquisitions have been held to be
lapsed. It is submitted that therefore in view of the subsequent decision
of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) clarifying the law and specifically overruling the decision of this
Court rendered in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra),
there shall not be any lapse of acquisition under the provisions of the
2013 Act. It is submitted that if the impugned orders passed in the
respective Civil Appeals are not reviewed/recalled, in that case, the
applicants/public authorities have to suffer and they will have to handover
the possession of the lands in question back to the original landowners
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
219
and thereby the lands in question shall not be used for the public purpose
for which they are acquired. It is contended that as observed and held
by this Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v.
Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741, a mistake on the part of the
Court may also call for a review of the order. It is submitted that in the
aforesaid decision it is further observed and held by this Court that the
words "sufficient reason" in order 47 Rule 1 CPC are wide enough to
include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
It is further observed that an application for review may be necessitated
by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.
4.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present applications and review/recall
the earlier orders passed in the respective Civil Appeals dismissing/
disposing off the same, relying upon the decision in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra), which has been subsequently overruled
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) and thereafter to decide and dispose
of the same in light of the subsequent decision rendered by the Constitution
Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). It is
submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to the respective respondents
if the matters are heard afresh on merits and the respective respondents/
landowners will be heard on merits on all points.
5. All these review applications are opposed by Shri Shyam Divan,
Sri V. Giri, Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, Shri Vivek Chib, learned Senior
Advocates and other counsel appearing for the respective respondents.
5.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respective
respondents that the applicants have admittedly filed the instant review
applications seeking review of the orders passed by this Court based on
a subsequent decision. It is submitted that change in law in view of the
subsequent decision of the Court cannot be a ground for review. It is
submitted that even if the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case
of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) has
overruled the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra), the settled position inter parties may not be affected.
5.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise the judgment in
Indore Development Authority (supra) may be construed to be
prospective in its operation and cannot reopen claims/cases which have
already attained finality.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
5.3 It is submitted that the law operational at the time when the
Delhi High Court delivered the judgment in the present matter (Civil
Appeal No. 8529/2016) was that laid down in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra).
5.4 It is contended that even before the date on which the judgment
of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
Lal (supra) was delivered, the matter had attained finality and rights of
the respective respondents over the subject lands were crystallised.
5.5 It is urged that so far as the reliance placed upon para 365 of
the decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
Lal (supra) is concerned, the Constitution Bench was only concerned
with the correctness of the law laid down in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353. That the Constitution Bench was
not considering the appeals in relation to Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra) or Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. (supra), or for that
matter a review of the decision in the aforesaid cases or any other case
for that matter. Therefore, the Constitution Bench could not have and
did not intend to reverse or review the judgments, as an expression of
adjudication by this Court either in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)
or Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. (supra) or any other judgment
of the competent Court that has followed the aforesaid judgments. That
the effect of overruling of the judgment could only be to address the
precedential value of the judgments so overruled but cannot set at naught
the decree that has been passed in that regard. It is submitted that by
overruling a decision, the overruled judgment will lose its precedential
value and nothing more than that. Reliance is placed on the decision of
this Court in the case of BSNL v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1.
That in the said decision, it is observed that the overruling would not
affect the binding nature of a decision between the parties to the lis.
5.5.1 Shri Divan, learned Senior Advocate has also relied upon
the recent decision of this Court in the case of Neelima Srivastava v.
State of U.P. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 610) in support of his submission
that as held by this Court that mere overruling of the principles by a
subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding effect of the decision
inter-parties. It is urged that therefore para 365 of the Constitution Bench
judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra)
does not aid the review petitioners.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
221
5.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the respective respondents that even otherwise none of the conditions
enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Order 47 of the Supreme
Court Rules are satisfied. That the review petitions are filed under Article
137 of the Constitution r/w Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules. That
Article 137 states that "subject to the provisions of any law made by
Parliament or any rules made under Article 145", this Court shall have
power to review its decision. It is submitted that Order 47 of the Supreme
Court Rules states that "no application for review will be entertained in
a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. That Order 47 Rule 1 CPC states that a review petition may be
preferred on the following grounds,
(a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him, OR
(b) order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record, OR
(c) for any other sufficient reason.
It is submitted that in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
(2013) 8 SCC 320, this Court has reiterated the law on review jurisdiction
and it is observed and held that unless the aforesaid grounds are made
out, the review petition shall not be maintainable.
5.7 It is further submitted that even otherwise overruling of an
earlier decision cannot be a ground for review. It is contended that the
sole ground raised in the present cases is that the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been held to be per incuriam
in the earlier decision of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
(dead) through Lrs. (supra) and it is contended by the review petitioners
that as per the judgment in Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. (supra), the decisions rendered on
the basis of the Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) were open to
review in appropriate cases based on the said decision. It is submitted
that the explanation to Order 47 of the Code states that the fact that the
decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is
based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior court in any other case, shall not be aground for the review of
such judgment. It is submitted that a Constitution Bench of this Court in
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
the case of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1
has observed that change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a
coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for
review.
5.8 Learned counsel for the respective respondents have submitted
that in some of the cases, similar review petitions post Constitution Bench
decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
Lal (supra) have been dismissed. It is submitted that merely because
the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
been recalled subsequently may not be a ground to review and/or recall
the orders passed in the present cases and that too after such a long
delay. It is submitted that the order of recall does not in any manner
afford any additional impetus to the applicants to seek a review of the
judgment in the present cases.
5.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the review applications.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that in all these cases, the
respective Civil Appeals have been dismissed/disposed of, confirming
the orders passed by the respective High Courts, relying upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).
However, it is required to be noted that in Indore Development Authority
v. Shailendra, (2018) 1 SCC 733, correctness of the decision in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was doubted. The matter
was placed before the three Judge Bench. By a majority decision, the
decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was held
to be per incuriam. While holding so and overruling the decision in
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. (supra) and other decisions
following the said decision to the extent they were in conflict with the
three Judge Bench decision, this Court also observed that the decisions
rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are
open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of the said decision.
That is how, the applicants have preferred the present review applications
in view of the observations and liberty reserved in para 217 in the case
of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs.
(supra). The matter does not rest there. Thereafter, a reference was
made to the five Judge Bench of this Court. A Constitution Bench of this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal
(supra) thereafter has specifically overruled the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). In para 365, it is observed and
held as under:
"365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 is hereby overruled and all other
decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal
Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183
has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji
Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn.
v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353 cannot be said to be laying
down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the
same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra [Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra,
(2018) 3 SCC 412, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section
24(2) and whether "or" has to be read as "nor" or as "and" was
not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot
prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment."
Thus, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision
has not only observed that the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) is overruled but has also specifically observed that
all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
been followed, are also overruled. I have to give some meaning to the
said observations. Thus, in view of the above specific observations made
by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the objections, as above, raised
on behalf of the respective respondents are to be overruled. None of the
submissions/decisions relied upon on behalf of the respective respondents
shall be of any assistance to the respondents, though there cannot be
any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the relied
upon judgments/decisions on the review jurisdiction, more particularly,
in view of the observations made in para 217 in the earlier decision of
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
(dead) through Lrs. (supra) and the observations made in para 365 in
the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore
Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), reproduced
hereinabove.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
7. It is also required to be noted that in similar set of facts and
circumstances, this Court had condoned the delay and reviewed/recalled
the similar order in which the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) was relied upon. It may be true that in some cases,
the review applications have been dismissed. However, considering the
orders passed in rejecting review applications, it appears that attention
of the Court to paras 365 and 366 of the decision of the Constitution
Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) and
para 217 of the earlier decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. (supra) were not brought
to the notice of the Court.
8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respective
respondents that the case does not fall under Order 47 CPC and that the
subsequent overruling cannot be a ground to review the earlier order(s)
is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that here is a peculiar
case where the earlier decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra), upon which reliance has been placed earlier, was
itself doubted in the subsequent decision in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) and that the matter was referred to
the Constitution Bench and thereafter the Constitution Bench has declared
the law as above, more particularly paras 365 and 366 of the judgment
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). It is also required
to be noted that in most of the cases solely relying upon the earlier
decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and though
the possession of the lands in question have been taken over and in
many cases it might have been utilised/used by the beneficiary authorities,
orders are passed declaring the deemed lapse of acquisition. The resultant
effect would be to return the possession of the land/s which might have
been used by the beneficiary authorities. Therefore also in the larger
public interest, the review applications are required to be allowed and
the respective appeals are required to be considered and decided afresh.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, these are the
cases where the review applications are to be allowed and the appropriate
public authorities are to be given an opportunity to put forward their
case afresh, which shall be in the larger public interest.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
review/recall applications are allowed. The orders passed in the
respective Civil Appeals are hereby recalled and the respective Civil
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
225
Appeals are hereby ordered to be restored to their original file. Let the
said Civil Appeals be considered in accordance with law and on their
own merits and in light of the decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra). All the defences and/or contentions
which may be available to the respective parties are kept open including
the possession and neither I have entered into the questions on merits
nor expressed anything on merits in favour of either of the parties.
10. In view of the order passed in the review applications, no
further order is required to be passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
735/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11857/2016, which stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
I have had the advantage of reading the judgment proposed by
His Lordship M.R. Shah, J. in these review petitions. However, I am
unable to agree with the reasoning as well as the conclusions arrived at
by him.
2. In these batch of cases, the issue revolves around in my view
the very maintainability of these review petitions both on the ground of
delay and on a consideration of Article 137 of the Constitution of India
as well as Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (for
short, "S.C. Rules - 2013") and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short). The aforesaid provisions are
respectively extracted as under for immediate reference:
"Article 137 of the Constitution of India:
'137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme
Court. -Subject to the provisions of any law made by
Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme
Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or
order made by it.'
******
Order XLVII Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013:
'Order XLVII Rule 1- The Court may review its judgment
or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a
civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except
on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
The application for review shall be accompanied by a
certificate of the Advocate on Record certifying that it is the
first application for review and is based on the grounds
admissible under the Rules.'
******
'Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC1. Application for review of judgment.